Pasteur

“Bernard was right; the pathogen is nothing; the terrain is everything.” — Louis Pasteur’s deathbed words

Winifred found an excellent source of background info about that quote on the Wellness Directory of Minnesota website. They devote an entire page to this fascinating bit of medical and cultural history. Here are some excerpts:

The man after whom "Pasteurization" is named

The man after whom Pasturization is named

“…UNESCO proclaimed 1995 as “The Year of Pasteur.” Just prior to that, Pasteur’s family proudly released his notes and research. Gerald Geison, a science historian, was among the first people to thoroughly review those notes. In 1995, The Year of Pasteur, Geison wrote an article in the New York Times proclaiming that Pasteur had lied about his research on vaccines and germs and that most of his ideas had been plagiarized from his contemporaries. His article, “Pasteur’s Deception” claimed that Pasteur was, in the end, a fraud…”

“…In researching medicine, following the money has always led to the truth. The money, in Pasteur’s case, has led to unnecessary and mandatory vaccination programs. Wouldn’t we all like to own a company that gets support from a government that will enact laws to make the purchase of our product mandatory?

Where to begin? Well, let’s begin with the Germ Theory.

As discussed in The Lost History of Medicine, the Terrain is more important than the Germ.

Pasteur described germs as non-changeable. We know today, from the use of Darkfield Microscopes that microorganisms are pleomorphic, that they can change and often do. A virus can become a bacterium which can mutate into a yeast or fungus. Modern medicine has yet to acknowledge this because it would turn the pharmaceutical interests on their backs like a helpless tortoise. Again, we follow the money….”

“…It was Bechamp who discovered the pleomorphic nature of germs, and later on Bernard described the “milieu” or environment that affected/caused those changes. Bernard is the one responsible for our theories today on pH and how the nature of the microorganisms change as the body moves from an alkaline pH to an acidic pH. (This is covered in depth in our article The Lost History of Medicine.)

On his deathbed, Pasteur recanted, saying that Bernard was right; the Terrain is everything, the Germ is nothing.

However, since the Germ is so profitable, the medical world has written off his final statements as the madness of a dying man. We should all be so mad.

Another problem with the Germ Theory of medicine is discovered when we look at Koch’s Postulates:

  • The germ which causes a disease must be found in every case of the disease under the conditions which could explain the disease.
  • The germ must not be found in other diseases or healthy people.
  • The germ could be isolated and used to induce an experimental disease in animals which resembles the original disease in humans.

Pasteur never quite fulfilled all the rules. He was not able to find the germ in all cases of a disease, and this is where his research became fraudulent. Additionally, many so-called pathogenic germs are often found in healthy people. And finally, when Pasteur passed a germ from one animal to another to cause the disease, he did not pass the germ alone, but took some blood with it. Injecting toxic blood from one animal to another will guarantee the receiving animal becomes sick….”

“….Pasteur instructed his family never to release his lab notes. After his grandson died in 1975, they were finally released. This was when Professor Gerald Geison got a hold of them and presented his findings in 1993 to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The New York Times, seeing how UNESCO had named 1995 the Year of Pasteur, felt that this would be the proper time to release Gerald Geison’s research. Don’t you just love a good drama?<

The Myth of Pasteurization

One more thing before we go. Our second reference above makes this statement: “Pasteur developed ‘pasteurization’, a process by which harmful microbes in perishable food products are destroyed using heat, without destroying the food.”

This is not entirely true. Pasteurization does NOT kill ALL harmful microbes in milk and it DOES harm the milk.

In her book, The Medical Mafia, Dr Lanctôt debunks pasteurization with a one-two punch:

  1. The temperature is not high enough.
  2. The temperature is too high.

First off, Dr Lanctôt points out that germs that bring us typhoid, coli bacillus, and tuberculosis are not killed by the temperatures used, and there have been a good number of salmonella epidemics traced to pasteurized milk.

Secondly, the heating process injures the milk. She points out that pasteurization destroys milk’s intrinsic germicidal properties, not to mention healthy enzymes. She goes on to state that 50% of milks calcium is unusable (the body cannot assimilate it) after pasteurization. So much for all those milk commercials.

Here’s something we found online that was drawn up for a Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors concerning outbreaks from pasteurized milk:

1997, 28 persons ill from Salmonella in California, ALL FROM PASTEURIZED MILK.

1996, 46 persons ill from Campylobacter and Salmonella in California.

1994, 105 persons ill from E. coli and Listeria in California

March of 1985 19,660 confirmed cases of Salmonella typhimurium illness FROM CONSUMING PROPERLY PASTEURIZED MILK. Over 200,000 people ill from Salmonella typhimurium in PASTEURIZED MILK

1985, 142 cases and 47 deaths traced to PASTEURIZED Mexican-style cheese contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria monocytogenes SURVIVES PASTEURIZATION!

1985, 1500 persons ill from Salmonella infection

August of 1984 approximately 200 persons became ill with a Salmonella typhimurium from CONSUMING PASTEURIZED MILK

November of 1984, another outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium illness from CONSUMING PASTEURIZED MILK

1983, over 49 persons with Listeria illness have been associated with the consumption of PASTEURIZED MILK in Massachusetts.

1993, 28 persons ill from Salmonella infection

1982, 172 persons ill (100 hospitalized) from a three Southern state area from PASTEURIZED MILK.

1982, over 17,000 persons became ill with Yersinia enterocolitica from PASTEURIZED MILK bottled in Memphis, Tennessee.

It is the author’s conclusion that pasteurization is simply a quick fix that allows large cartels to profit from the sales of milk. Instead of relying on safe, sterile handling procedures of raw milk (which would make the costs of milk much more expensive), we’ve incorporated this quick fix, which might or might not work, but certainly helps the cartels profit….”

Read the whole article here on the Wellness Directory of Minnesota site.

88 responses to “Pasteur

  1. Winifred

    It may be of interest to have a few words on the process of pasteurization. I think so, thus I am including the link for an explanation of pasteurization on Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization. I am certain there are better sources that discuss the various ins and outs of pasteurization (a concept, ironically, that the prosecuting lawyer in Micahel’s Contempt of Court trial, Dan Kuzmyk used but was unable to define when asked by his witness, Ms. Wood), but for an initial explanation on the matter, this is perhaps good enough. An interesting section is found at the end of the article on the effectiveness of pasteruization, which I include herewith. How interesting wouldn’t you agree? Hmmmm.
    Effectiveness of pasteurization (according to Wikepedia)
    Milk pasteurization has been subject to increasing scrutiny in recent years, due to the discovery of pathogens that are both widespread and heat resistant (able to survive pasteurization in significant numbers).[2]
    References
    1. ^
    2. ^ Irene R. Grant et al, “Effect of Commercial-Scale High-Temperature, Short-Time Pasteurization on the Viability of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in Naturally Infected Cows’ Milk”, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, February 2002, p. 602-607, Vol. 68, No. 2

    So…do you think pasteurizing dirty milk, from countless unknown farms, and collected in holding tanks; is better than a farmer who takes meticulous care of his cows, their milk, and the terrain in which the said cows graze, and passes this milk directly to his patrons in glass bottles. Hmmm, again …. I know my choice.

  2. Dr Dave

    I am a medical historian and a qualified medical microbiologist. This is the most egregious bullshit that I have read in a long time. The author of this claptrap should be ashamed. Bacteria and fungi are phylogenetically distant and do not mutate into one another. Viruses are not even living things. Milk can be contaminated by poor handling practices after pasteurization of course. To blame the pasteurization process is simply ignorant. Good luck proving raw milk is safe.

    • skepticalgoatfarmer

      Thanks for your comment.
      I’m researching the pro’s and con’s of potentially producing raw milk cheese, and the preponderance of disingenuous quote mining and shabby science on the “Raw” side of the argument is, well, concerning to say the least.

    • Dana

      “Viruses are not even living things.” Thanks for showing yourself to be a fraud right there, as scientists are still DEBATING whether or not a virus is a living thing. Most seem to believe it is at this point, since it is classified as such.

      I’ve seen enough claptrap passed through official channels in the name of “science” that I’m willing to at least entertain strange ideas because I haven’t seen them disproven. Great, you read books and look at germs under microscopes. That tells us nothing about the whole scope of your work, what you’ve looked at, and what you’ve proven or disproven. My guess is you’re a lab monkey for some big corporation. They turn out bad science too.

    • :/

      What does it mean to be a “qualified medical microbiologist”? If what they study is based on mis-truth.

      • It means that they have studied for 4-6 years, applied the knowledge gained from said studying, experienced through residencies the practical use of that knowledge, and cured infected patients. It means making a tremendous personal sacrifice of time and energy and money to KNOW the environments and tolerances the organisms whose names you throw around in your attempts to intimidate and subjugate people to your minimalist wiki-educational ideologies.

    • Making sense

      The earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. The only way change is made is by those brave enough to question embedded beliefs endure ridicule. First they are ignored, then ridiculed and then accepted as mainstream. Look at the demise of the poor doctor so many centuries ago who dared question the practice of working on cadavers and then delivering babies without washing their hands? He was ostracized from the whole medical field. He who laughs last, laughs best, but often not in one’s lifetime. All I ask is stay open to the process of researching and beliefs. You never know what we all may learn.

      • donna

        all I need know is I was raised on raw milk for the first 18 years of my life and NEVER got sick. That’s enough science for me.

        Here’s more science… when I moved to the big city I was suddenly lactose intolerant. Now I’m in California where magically back on raw milk, I’m fine again.

        Oh science!

      • And all we sciency-types ask is that you do so through logical and verifiable, repeatable means. Semelweiss to whom you refer used these methods and collected real verifiable data and presented it so that his experiments (his experience) could be repeated. The microbiologist is right to be inflamed about the content of this page- it’s not just going against the grain in the attempt to stand for truth but it is using downright lies to inject fear, with the intent of repelling the ignorant from the currently acceptable venues of information, which, if they truly are corrupt must be brought down with truths.

    • “Doctor” Dave, aka medical historian and qualified medical microbiologist (???):

      You seem to be very angry and the statements you make and the language you’re using leads me to believe there’s more fearful ignorance than the truth behind your “qualifications” and competence…. But thanks for sharing, anyway :)

    • itcus

      This historian is just that “his story” via main stream collusion. For thousands of years people have subsided on raw milk with no ill affects..when along comes these so called trained scientists and they proceed to inform people that nature made a mistake and raw milk is harmful……really..are you that disillusioned.

      Like most things of this magnitude follow the money for the truth…I suppose that smoking tobacco is healthy….oops….but the “qualified medical personal” told us that it was safe. Most mistakes have been made the name of profit, I mean science….cancer=profit there is no money in the cure only in the treatment…

    • Bb

      I’m sorry mr. Dave,… but by simply stating your qualifications doesn’t make for an argument… please explain through your vast scientific knowledge what your reservations are with raw milk and why you would and/or wouldnt support pasturization process. The argment/ discourse itself will be useful here to make your point clear, not the list of your degrees!

    • I asked the manager of Jimbo’s, who had worked there for 28 years, about the safety of the Raw Milk ( by Organic Pastures ), and he told me that no one during the last 28 years of his employment had reported any issues with the product insofar as causing illness. I also note pasteurized milk gives me hay fever within 12 hours of consuming, but raw milk does not. That’s proof enough for me to make my choice, not your “trust authority” bs,

  3. Kyrie

    With your medical background, Dr. Dave, why resort to inflammatory language? Choose one or the other Simply state what you know and how it affects your belief system. What you end up doing is using your medical qualifications to bolster the emotional side of your argument. The ranting doctor must be right. If ‘safe’ is the word to describe pasteurized milk, then Raw milk is also safe. Both drinkable, not lethal. There are documented problems with pasteurized, I haven’t heard of an outbreak from raw milk. Raw milk has been ingested for centuries. Balanced biosis through careful nutrition in the cow certainly would contribute to healthy milk products. Fear of the germ causes oversight of more profound understanding of health

    • skepticalgoatfarmer

      http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1508307&pageindex=1

      http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/1138/Raw_Milk_Outbreak_Table.pdf

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10340367

      You might want to be careful where you point those broad generalizations.

      Take a look at the sources of all of the glowing praises that you see heaped on raw milk.
      They come from about 4 sources. westonprice et al, Mr Mercola, Schmid, and maybe one more.
      I’m a farmer, I drink raw milk every day, but I’m also aware that it is, in the wrong situation, potentially lethal.
      Please, let’s actually critically examine scientific evidence from both sides before making claims that could affect peoples lives.

      • Level Headed

        This is one of only a few level-headed comments made by a raw milk supporter on this site. skepticalgoatfarmer is right that raw milk can be produced in a way that either is or is not dangerous. It’s not so much about raw or processed milk being healthy or not, it’s really about the bigger picture — from the cow’s health (grass-fed happy cows, or cows on antiobiotics eating other than grass), to the practices of the farm and motives of the farmer (cleanlieness and wise traditions for the purpose of good health, or factory-style big production for the purpose of making more profit), to the cow’s genes (are they the $2 really-red-huge-but-not-the-sweetest strawberries, or the locally-grown-sweeter-smaller-better $4 ones?)… it’s a BIGGER picture than just “raw milk is better”. The raw milk idea is part of better health, but it’s not the answer to all our problems, it’s only a piece of the larger picture .
        “Please, let’s actually critically examine scientific evidence from both sides before making claims that could affect peoples lives.”
        I’m a supporter of raw milk, but in passing I’ve noticed mistakes made by many involved in this movement… for instance, who has any ACTUAL evidence that Pasteur recanted on his deathbed… we need to be careful not to throw out statements that cannot be backed up by actual verifiable proof, otherwise it makes us look silly at best.
        There is no substitute for evidence.
        Let’s be critical with ourselves folks, otherwise we’re just going to make ourselves look foolish.
        Bold statements need to have strong evidence to back it up, and I suspect people like Dr. Dave would not be so mad at the ideas presented on this site if every statement was made with solid verifiable (referenced!!) evidence. The lack of such would and should tick anyone off, including myself.
        Look at the top-right of this page for example:
        “Bernard is right; the pathogen is nothing; the terrain is everything.” — Louis Pasteur’s deathbed words
        Where is the proof that Pasteur actually said this? (forget for a moment about whether or not the germ theory is or is not exclusively correct) — is this statement about his deathbed words ACTUALLY true? Are we sure? REALLY SURE?
        There are many examples like this on this site — stuff that “might be true, and certainly we’d like it to be true, but, well…” we don’t have verifiable evidence if challenged on it.
        I’m not disagreeing with the movement.
        I am calling for accuracy, reliability, and verifiable sources for ALL claims made.
        Interestingly, if you Google Pasteur’s deathbed words, you’ll find that there is no substantial evidence that he said such a thing, only rumors and speculation. I’m not saying he did or didn’t recant — I’m saying there’s no proof! And without proof, no argument should be posted on this site, otherwise we damage ourselves and our mission to make the raw milk movement a well known and respected movement for change.
        Stop making respectable people angry with unsubstantiated claims!

      • Dana

        Water is potentially lethal in the wrong situation too. Hey! Let’s ban that!

        Level Headed thinks we shouldn’t accept any information EVER unless it’s verifiable. There goes 99 percent of human history. Nobody had cameras, nobody had sound recording and none of us from today can go back in time to verify. All we’ve got is–oops–the written record. That means exactly diddly squat.

      • nog

        Thank you for your level-headed comments. I think healthy skepticism–both of the conventional wisdom that pasteurization is necessary for a safe product, and of the sort of mystical obsession with the healing powers of raw milk–is key in the search for the reality of the situation. I did a bit of research on the raw milk issue in college, and the conclusion I came to (keep in mind I don’t claim to be an expert) is that, as with most things, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

      • George

        The truth is that without facts, you are just someone with an opinion. The arguments made on both sides can be very passionate but passion does not make one right – or wrong.

    • catdaddio42

      I don’t agree that Dr. Dave uses inflammatory language (you must live a pretty refined environment if you think that was inflammatory) but I can suggest a reason for his anger – at least it’s what always makes me angry – and that’s a version of Luke 17:2. Adults should be able to discern good from bad advice but when you lie to mislead or endanger children you’re going to be on my bad side immediately. I’m not a medical microbiologist, I’m just a run of the mill PhD microbiologist. I’d be the first to admit that raw milk might be safe. I also know that it might not be safe and that children are those in the greatest danger from a “bad” product. Risk assessment is not only about personal experience. As a scientist you get trained in the “larger” vision and virtually all the scientists I’ve known are in it for some version or the greater good. On the other hand, it’s often possible to mislead even yourself – that’s why you need verification in another lab or with another set of tests. My father in law is a dairy farmer and I’ve seen the trouble my in-laws go to while they care for the cows and bring safe product to market. Frankly, that experience makes the existence of a conscience-less dairy farmer almost unimaginable, especially if he/she has a family. Clearly the government doesn’t have all the answers but don’t assume the worst of a farmer or a scientist simply because they don’t agree with you.

  4. neji

    Dr. Dave

    I sincerely doubt you are a doctor. You have provided nothing but insults and your own narrow views. I think you may want to go back to medical school and get your reasoning and intellect, that you left when you graduated, if you even did graduate.

  5. Pingback: 18 Days: Caffein! Weirdness! Productivity! « Countdown to 30

  6. Tori

    I agree with Dr. Dave. I am a food scientist and viruses cannot changes to bacteria, bacteria to yeast etc. If anyone can prove that – good luck. This the first tip as to what kind of “references” you are using for your claims. Why do you believe our life expectancies have gone from 45 to 75? So many people were ill because of unknown causes, some of which was most definitely food poisoning. Others have been because we now have vaccines to treat illness (which you also bash in this site).
    No matter how you treat the cows, there will ALWAYS be bacteria in the milk, but the dairy industry has standards to ensure poor quality milk is not used to for milk consumption (the PMO – Pasteurized Milk Ordiance).
    Pasteurization is not perfect, but it does knock out any of the big food safety threats – E.Coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter etc. There is such a thing as sterilized milk, that you can buy if you are worried about the food poisoning cases stated above (however, I highly doubt these were researched by anyone on this site with credible sources). Most likely it was post pasteurization contamination from bad handling that caused the outbreaks. I don’t quite understand why you bring up food poisoning cases when you want to eat something that is inherently filled with bacteria.
    Also – I am not sure why you dedicate a page to Pasteur when he had nothing to do with the development of pasteurization. He did discover microbes etc and some of the nutrients they require to survive. He was the first microbiologist and there is no need to hash one of the greatest scientists of modern science.

    • I think another point is that this hypothetical unpasteurized milk is even riskier in milk that comes from antibiotic pumped cows. Isn’t there proof that antibiotics both decrease immune resistance to pathogens and strengthen pathogens over time? If you’re buying Lucerne, you would really hope you’re getting pasteurized milk. If you happen to have happy cows on a happy organic farm and pay really close attention to both the health of the cows and the freshness of the milk, I think you’d be okay or at worse suffer a bout of diarrhea here and there. I’m not sure why people need to be so polarized about issues like this. Whenever something is this contentious, it often involves both parties being stubborn (and either overly educated/indoctrinated/convinced). I guess we’re all Bible thumpers of a sort. Also, I think one of the ideas of “probiotics” being good in one’s diet is the slow (not readily detectable) remediation of the gut and intestinal flora. Why assume big results would be easily measurable? One could hope a diet that includes probiotics would allow someone to get sick less and have less digestive problems, but given other factors, say, everything else we eat, everything else we’re surrounded by, any preexisting conditions we may have, and everything else we do, doesn’t it make sense that people still have health problems in spite of doing like 1 ideally healthy thing?

      Just sayin’.

  7. rhazi

    Pleomorphism, as applied to bacterium, as originally understood, has never been documented. I defy anyone on this website to find a peer reviewed journal source that can document bacterium changing shape to have extremes in physical differences and shapes, even from generation to generation (that is how it was applied to bacteria in the early 20th century). Currently pleomorphism as applied to bacteria involves variations within shape of cellular structure but not of the extremes that were once thought possible; and certainly this “mutating” into viruses or vice versa or “mutating” in to fungi and plants, etc has never been documented by a verifiable, peer reviewed source. If it has, please provide that peer reviewed source. E. coli will always remain e. coli and will always look and act like e. coli. If it evolves other forms and features and physical characteristics, it is no longer e. coli. However, it will still remain bacterium, not a fungus or virus or plant. The statements made in this article either demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of principles in biology, including evolutionary, genetic and microbiological concepts or an egregious attempt at misstatement or misrepresentation of those principles and are at best misleading to the average internet reader who more likely than not has no detailed understanding of biology.

    • Dana

      Current thinking on mitochondria and chloroblasts indicates they most likely evolved from bacteria in symbiotic relationships with their host cells. It would certainly explain why mitochondria always have different DNA than the rest of the cell they reside in.

      If enough people think an idea is bunkum they will not make an effort to explore the idea. I’ve seen this happen and I’m a layperson! So, lack of proof does not constitute disproving.

      • Level Headed

        Dana says she’s a layperson. Great, nice to hear from yet another one, but I’d like to hear more than JUST a layperson’s opinion.
        Blogs attract thousands of laypeople who publish their various opinions (everybody’s got a voice), and that’s great, but without a professional to clear the confusion and help us through, such as someone who is actually a biologist and chemist with both laboratory and real world experience, we are just going to swim in a sea of laypeople comments… that might make a blog exciting, but it fails to answer the core questions posed in the comments here about Pasteur and his germ theory.
        A true professional limits their bias to allow for truth to overcome their bias.
        Unlike the layperson’s (who usually makes many unverifiable claims), the professional’s claims are verfiable and make sense. The layperson is able to test some of the professional’s arguments to see if they are true, as the professional’s arguments will testify whether or not they actually know what they’re saying.
        More laypeople like Dana giving various biased opinions on Pasteur and his germ theory will not help.
        Truth is verifiable. If you don’t believe that, then you might as well not believe anything can or is right or good or best, because if truth is not verifiable, then what’s the truth about truth — maybe it doesn’t exist. Maybe you don’t either. Maybe you’re living in the matrix.
        But if truth is verifiable, then it exists, and then we can use logic to discover truth via the scientific method of guess, test, until proven true or false.
        If most things are unverifiable as Dana claims, then don’t bother with going for the benefits of raw milk, because the Weston A. Price foundation bases all of their research on verifiable information — truth. Check out their powerpoint on raw milk and notice how they provide evidence for their claims about the health of raw milk. REAL, VERIFIABLE, EVIDENCE. Truth.
        But some choose to be tossed around with every new conspiracy theory out there. Each to their own I suppose.

  8. miguel

    rhazi,
    Your comment:”If it has, please provide that peer reviewed source. E. coli will always remain e. coli and will always look and act like e. coli. If it evolves other forms and features and physical characteristics, it is no longer e. coli.”

    Doesn’t the theory of pleomorphism and bacteria(generation time :20 minutes)look a lot like the theory of evolution regarding macroscopic life only condensed into a very short time frame?In the theory of evolution, don’t large organisms change “form,features and physical characteristics”?Of course,when lizards evolve into birds,we don’t still call them lizards,but does that deny that they changed over many generations into birds?The driving force behind pleomorphism or evolution is the same: the struggle to survive in a changing environment.The principle behind both is that the environment determines the form(over many generations).

    • Dana

      Bacteria trade DNA like little kids trade Pokemon cards. They’re downright shameless about it. E. coli is just a label people tacked onto bacteria that look a certain way.

      I’m not saying I believe bacteria turn into viruses but hey, maybe they do. Until someone makes the effort to figure it out, they can hardly dismiss the idea.

      I’m not convinced lizards evolved into birds, though. I do think birds evolved from reptiles, but lizards are a specific type of reptile. It’s like saying people came from monkeys or chimps, which isn’t correct either. Our relationship with chimps is similar to that of cousins–one did not descend from the other.

    • rhazi

      Pleomorphism, as applied to bacteria involves variations in shapes and size of the individual cell, not the “morphing” of one species to the next. Evolutionary theory as applied to bacterium involves the changes in genetic code that confers various traits such as resistance to antibiotics. However, the overall bacterial genome that defines a certain species and the traits that make it so, remain. In terms of evolutionary theory and bacterium, if there are changes such that the traits that defined a given species change, for example if the genome changes such that the overall morphology and metabolism has drastic changes, say from chains in Streptococcus, to grape-like bunches in Staphylococcus, that bacteria has evolved into a new species and it is not the old species or even another version of the old species. In speciation, the ancestral form may or may not be co-extant with the filial form, meaning the species that gave rise to to the new species may be living along side the species that gave rise to it, or, there might me completely new species that replace the old species that are not new forms of the old species. Let me be clear, while, pleomorphism may be one of the factors in driving the evolution of various traits, pleomorphism is not evolution, but a result of random variations in genomes and proteomes that give rise to differences in morphology (shapes and sizes) within a species. For larger organisms, there may be additive pleomorphisms, changes in pleiotropy, and other traits that are conferred or no longer used which eventually lead to speciation. However, the idea remains the same, once a new species arises, it is no longer the old species and is completely different and not simply a newer version of the old species.

  9. ronaldo

    Isn’t it common knowledge that viruses are robotic and created in laboratories?

    • I agree completely and have read that death bed statement numerous times. Many doctors practice medicine using Gerard’s ideas and are successful. Many people also drink raw milk with no problem- the cows have to be healthy- not the type we grow today- they have to be outdoors and living a normal life.

      I just reread the quote in Oliver Sack’s book, Awakenings, and wonder if there is a source for it, as I just got into a discussion about it and there was a bit of hostility. Thanks, Sue

  10. Pingback: Is the battle FOR or AGAINST bacteria? « The Bovine

  11. Get over your raw milk phobias.

    Raw milk can be safe or unsafe. It depends on the conditions of the cows the milking and the immune system of those that drink it. There are two raw milks in America:

    ….one for people and one for the pastuerizer.

    One clean with tight standards and one dirty with loose standards.

    In CA you can go to any of 400 stores and buy delicious fresh raw milk. It must meet or exceed pastuerized milk standards with out first being pastuerized. Thats clean safe raw milk…yet it is biodiverse and enzyme rich and yum!!

    Next time you are in CA….treat yourself. The last deaths from milk was pastuerized milk in MA ( Whittier Farms ). Organic Raw Milk in CA has a perfect food safety history and has never killed anyone in forever ( none in the data base ).

    Remember there are two raw milks in America…please stop mixing them up. Pastuerized milk gives raw milk a bad reputation.

    Mark McAfee
    Founder OPDC
    Fresno CA

    • Making sense

      Hear, hear! I know you went through a lot yourself during the recent witch hunts for raw milk sellers. Gee, I wonder who could be putting pressure on the FDA to continue trying to find fault with raw milk?

  12. sue maxwell

    It is always easier to believe that illness comes to you without any consideration of your lifestyle, the way you eat, etc. Keeps it all so mysterious and we then have no responsibility for how we take care of our bodies. If you care for your body, eat correctly, you are likely to avoid many problems, but there never is a guarantee in a world filled with pollution, chemical fertilizers, genetically produced food, chickens that live in cages and drop eggs, cows that never see the light of day, and many more factors. I keep my body alkaline and have few problems with my health. I have worked to improve the bad genetic inheritance I was born with and the difference is incredible.

    • sue maxwell

      Having a milk allergy prohibits me from drinking raw milk, but I did try it for awhile, and it is so much more delicious. When I was young ( born in 1941) we had milk with the creme on top delivered at our door. It was delicious. From all that I have read, people had less heart problems then, and ate creme, real butter, meat, and other things that are no-no’s today. If anyone has ever had English clotted creme- wow! That is delicious. I am so unused to drinking milk, though, that I feel it is actually better to stick to water that is of good quality. I drink three quarts a day and if I don’t I have problems. A very interesting book written by a physician, called, The Body’s Many Cries For Water, explains the problems dehydration cause. But if you drink milk, raw milk is just great to the taste. A health store near me sells it from their farm, along with eggs that are produced from chickens that run around with the cows. I have never eaten such great eggs, and they are various colors- some are green. Now I know where Dr. Seuss got his idea for his famous book. The yolks are dark yellow, tasty, they are more tasty and the shells are harder.

  13. Pingback: Question from Colleen « Future Medicine Now :: The Contemplation

  14. “On his deathbed, Pasteur recanted, saying that Bernard was right; the Terrain is everything, the Germ is nothing.”

    These concepts are precisely the principles which distinguish Oriental medicine from conventional Western medicine. Oriental medicine recognizes pathogens and in fact recognized the difference between viruses and bacteria over two thousand years ago — but their focus has always been on the ‘terrain’.

  15. sue maxwell

    While I saw the quote years ago, I have recently found it again in two books by major scientists who are world renowned: Candace Pert, and Oliver Sacks.

    You have to use some logic here because people in the same house don’t always come down with the same plagues or illnesses; that includes neighborhoods. If you body is healthy, germs cannot grow and many doctors will tell you that we all have them in our body at varying times, including cancer. It is the same with gardening- if the soil is healthy, the plants don’t attract invading insects. I am the only one in my neighborhood that doesn’t spray my cherry tree or anything and I am the only one who has cherries without worms.

    Pasteur had more political clout that Bernard did, so he got the attention; but his deathbed quote is ignored as alot of people would lose money if the germ theory was dismissed. How long have people been contributing money to fights against major diseases of our civilizations- lots of money and little success.

    If you read Candace Pert’s first two books, you will get it better and you will see how political medical research is and how she moved out of the mainline in her thinking because she could prove that the oldway of thinking was incorrect. It is sickening. She now works in psychoneuroimmunology and had proven why alternative/complimentary healing techniques work biochemically.

  16. hb, advanced practice nurse

    The argument is one that has existed for centuries. There is no disagreement in medicine that both external and internal factors are important, but we do haggle over the details. The acceptance of the “fight or flight ” response and the biomedical implications it held is 30 years old. The idea that over-reaction of the immune system is responsible for many acute and chronic diseases is not generally disputed. Blockade of the pro-inflammatory TNF is an accepted medical intervention in interrupting the inflammatory cascade. The questions these days are 1. which conditions are caused by this response 2. why does the immune system respond in these ways and 3. what are the triggers. See this site for a nice review of the topic. http://www.jci.org/articles/view/30555

  17. latte_girl

    I think that this is one of my favourite streams of thought on the Bovine. Diverse and ever-changing, like a virus mutating into a fungus…. (joke).

    Let’s not pick on Pasteur too much. Pasteur invented the process of pasteurization to preserve wine and beer from going sour (hey, who wants a glass of vinegar with their dinner?) in a time when refrigerators, vacuum sealing, and air-tight canning, were unheard of technologies. The process was successful and consequently applied to a multitude of products including, but not limited to, milk.

    Pasteurization enabled a growing, urbanizing population, access to safer, more sanitary food products.

    And he wasn’t the only one to see this need, especially in milk. After witnessing several children die from contaminated milk while on ship from England to America, Gail Borden Jr. developed the process of condensing milk. Condensed milk is essentially pasteurized milk with sugar added to further inhibit bacterial growth.

    Pasteurized milk continues to fill an important need in our society: allowing for dairy products to be widely, safely available, at an affordable price.

    Picking on Pasteur is like picking on the guy who said you should wash your hands after handling raw chicken. It is simple food safety.

    So let’s pick on the real culprit…. a misinformed government that instituted UNIVERSAL PASTEURIZATION as a matter of law. Pasteur isn’t responsible for current legislation: the man’s been dead for 115 years.

    As for those deathbed words, I believe he said them. In the 1800′s, the studies of science and philosophy were interchangeable, especially theoretical science which was Pasteur’s specialty. Imagine being Pasteur, thinking that thanks to vaccinations and germ avoidance, you might actually live forever (the alchemist’s dream). But in the end, your body betrays you and a series of small strokes leaves you helpless.

    “Bernard was right: the pathogen is nothing; the terrain is everything.” A most elegant comment on the ultimate frailty and mortality of the human body.

    • Latte girl, NEVER pasteurize your wine!!! Stick to latte :)

      Wine is ready to be bottled once the anaerobic process of fermentation is completed with all sugar turned into alcohol. Alcohol in wine acts as ‘preservative’ and as long as there’s no oxygen in the bottle (which is why you keep your bottles lying on their side, to keep cork wet so it doesn’t dry up and shrink, and no air gets in), your wine will age nicely over years. And get more and more expensive to buy. Leave it open on the counter, and before you know, it turns into vinegar. :-)

  18. miguel

    Latte_girl,
    Pasteurization is only partially effective for a short time.The bacteria that people worry about making them sick rebound from the heat shock more quickly than the lactic acid bacteria that makes milk sour.As the time period between pasteurization and consumption grew longer,processors have had to resort to higher temperature pasteurization to try to lengthen the shelf life of their product.Read Lida Mattman’s book on Cell Wall Deficient bacteria.She calls them “stealth pathogens”.In many ways they are more dangerous than bacteria with cell walls intact.Some researchers refer to them as L-forms.

    At any rate pasteurization cannot make food safer,it only delays the illness long enough so that it is difficult to make a connection between the food and the illness.A healthy immune system can handle a certain amount of opportunistic bacteria and in fact becomes better at protecting us with practice.CWD bacteria are not detected by our immune systems and can actually live and reproduce inside our white blood cells.

  19. latte_girl

    Miguel,

    In a perfect world….. Oh yeah, the world isn’t perfect.

    I was inspired to read more about pasteurization due to the milk products currently available to me. I’m living in the United States for a short period. Being concerned about the quality of dairy products (bovine growth hormone is a matter of course in the dairy industry here) I carefully read labels before making my purchases.

    A coffee lover, I typically drink my favourite beverage with half and half. But every time I read a carton of half and half, it referred to the product as “ultra-pasteurized” and boasted an unusually long shelf life.

    So before buying anything; I came home, fired up the internet, and read about ultra-pasteurization (which of course led to much reading about pasteurization in general).

    My reading led to questions, and I’ve been lucky enough to speak to some interesting people on the subject.

    In New Mexico, raw milk is legal provided strict farming, bottling, and distribution conditions are met. Yet, there are no raw milk products on any store shelves. Why?

    The answer I received is very telling. There is not enough demand to make production cost effective. Making safe, sanitary raw milk, is expensive. Then the product has such a limited shelf life that unless there is an identified consumer for immediate sale of the product, the waste alone inflates the cost beyond the reach of most people.

    And while there is a wealthy, informed, health-conscious segment of population, it does not balance the number of people living well below the national poverty line. New Mexico has been described as “caught in the repeated cycles of intergenerational poverty”. And these cycles will not be broken if the children are continually subjected to a sub-standard school system (New Mexico ranks 49th out of 50 states) and here’s the big one: HUNGER.

    So it’s not perfect. Pasteurized milk, refined flours, and high-fructose corn syrup are not the basis of an ideal diet. But less ideal would be starvation.

    The fact a gallon (just under 4 litres) of store-brand milk (much of which is from out of state) can be purchased for an average of $2 is an important consideration on the pasteurization debate. I’m not saying that there isn’t a better way, including sanitary raw milk, but dismissing pasteurization entirely is something only the rich and self-righteous can currently do.

    After reading the science on both sides of the pasteurization debate, there is no clear winner. Economic circumstances will determine what is best for the individual. I am adamant in my belief that Universal Pasteurization is a mistake, but I also believe that deregulation of the dairy industry is also a mistake.

    By the way, since there was no way around pasteurized products here, I had to compromise. For my own family I managed to source local dairy products that come from a “Grade A” provider and do not use growth hormone. But, I pay dearly for these milk products: up to 4 times more than store-brand, and more than twice what I paid for the same quality back in Canada. It has truly made me appreciate the higher (though not perfect) standards that the Canadian dairy industry maintains.

    • Jill Herendeen

      Here’s another problem w/ pasteurization–that it, in the long run, destroys LOCAL production. E.g., instead of people buying stuff from their local farmers, the farmers sell their milk to The Milk Processor (for extremely little) and then people buy milk from the stores that the Milk Processor distributes the milk to. Which is great for the middlemen, and companies which build milk tanker trucks, and oil producers, but does little for the local economy. How well I recall being in the boonies (in upstate NY), buying (the usual pasteurized, homogenized) milk at a convenience store, and the milk came from a dairy in Buffalo, 2 hours’ drive to the west. Directly across the road from this store was a big dairy farm.
      Perhaps it depends on your priorities.

  20. Odette

    So back to the reference of bacteria mutating. I am not a scientist. Prefer to think of myself as a movement artist and educator. I am my own lab. Have always been very healthy until 2008 when MRSA managed to enter my system. MRSA is a mutant staph bacteria that is very hard to treat with antibiotics because it is resistant to most antibiotics. It can be fatal. The Infectious Diseases specialist (medical doctor) I consulted admitted resistant bacteria, particularly MRSA, is reaching epidemic proportions and not showing signs of going away any time soon. If Staph bacteria can mutate why can’t other types of bacteria mutate? I have viral issues in my body too and sometimes can’t tell whether it’s the virus or the bacteria acting up! The Infectious Diseases Specialist who I have consulted with more than once says there is really nothing he can do for me and that I am on the right track with the other healing modalities I am working with – naturopathy, ayurveda, homeopathy. Yes, and my health is improving. Consuming raw milk is still part of my experiment. We are all part of an experiment. How’s that for science?

    • Swamijie

      OK, quick education about mutations and antibiotic resistant bacteria. Yes, MRSA is a “mutant” form of Staphylococcus aureus. No, it is not a new type of staph, or a different genus of bacteria, or now not bacteria and turned into a fungus or virus. The difference between MRSA or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and non-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is the same difference between a person who is lactose intolerant and a person who can tolerate lactose. In the latter case, both individuals are still humans, but with slightly different genetics that give them slightly different traits and characteristics; in this case being the difference an ability to metabolize and tolerate lactose. In the former case, both are same kind of bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus, but one type, MRSA has gained an advantage that confers resistance to methicillin type antibiotics. Staphylococcus aureus isn’t somehow special in that it can’t mutate, and, all types of bacteria and any organism that has a genome, meaning all organisms can and do mutate, but mutations mean they gain different characteristics from the originals, not that they become entirely new species or or even jump from kingdom to kingdom (e.g. bacteria to fungus). This article suggests that bacterial mutations result in changes that are so physically and statistically unlikely that everyone on this blog has a better chance of winning the lotto (it can even be all different lottos) on the same day and same drawing time in reference to the same time zone. The reason for the increasing prevalence of MRSA is two-fold. We use methicillin type antibiotics for everything, from our food source to cleaning our hands, basically forcing these bacteria to evolve antibiotic resistance. Along with the simultaneous development of resistance to human herd-type immunity (meaning the Staphylococcus aureus bacteria also have gained traits that allow them to develop resistance to measures taken by our own immune system) by Staphylococcus aureus, these “bugs” have developed into superbugs and human epithelial cells have become the equivalent of petri dishes as far as the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria are concerned. One of the problems is that the human immune system works the same, no matter who you are, including using the same proteins (antibodies, cytokines, etc), the same immune cells and the same inflammatory response. The way antibiotics work is they kill off most of a bacterial population that enters our system so that our immune system can do a mop up job and kill off anything that’s left, then set up an equivalent of a persona no grata alert system to destroy the infectious agent when it returns. MRSA, because of it’s resistance to antibiotics, overwhelms our immune system and renders the cavalry (antibiotics) ineffective. If the complementary and alternative, nontraditional therapies you undergo can both at least control the bacterial population AND bolster your immune system, they should benefit you. The doctor you consulted is bound by law and the scope of his practice in the treatments he can offer you, not by his scientific knowledge. There is likely no conclusive evidence the treatments you undergo don’t work so he encourages you, but also there probably is no conclusive evidence they do work, so he cannot by law and the scope of his license recommend them to you. When it comes to treatments, science works on evidence (in terms of raw numbers and statistical significance, not anecdotes) of efficacy and when it comes to treatments that apply to humans, we demand a higher standard in which we (meaning the general public) demand overwhelming evidence.

  21. Ash

    I personally have no doubt that raw milk from a clean, well-run farm is better than pasteurized milk from a factory farm; I would be leary of buying raw milk from a dirty/poorly run farm and wouldn’t touch it from a factory farm.

    I haven’t bought milk in years even though I like it and would like to use it in cooking, baking etc. but factory farm milk, pasteurized or not, well I don’t think of it as real food, and therefore regard purchasing it as a total waste of money. If raw milk were available from a local farm whose premises I could check out (inspect) personally and personally approve, I would certainly have been buying milk the past few decades.

    The key issue is choice. It is simply wrong to allow legislation to trample on basic, fundamental rights. If a farmer wants to make milk (or anything else) a certain way, and people want to buy from that milk (or anything else) they should be allowed to do so. The simplest solution is just to have various certifications in place: if you want pasteurized milk that milk has to come up to certain quality standards and be subject to a verifiable pasteurization process.

    Similarly, you could have a certified ‘organic raw’ or simply ‘raw’ (not organic) milk. And of course you could still have milk (or anything else) that is not certified at all. If a producer goes for a certified product they have to meet the requirements and submit to inspections that allow such verification/certification to be awarded. Presumably the extra certainty in terms of quality will justify the expense of the certification process and translate into more sales, ability to expand operation (within reason) and so forth.

    But meanwhile any farmer or customer who chooses to forgo producing or purchasing something certified as X or Y or Z-process etc. should be able to do so. There is absolutely no problem with this.

    The way legislation and corporatisation/centralization is going in all the major developed countries is ruining our cultures, our quality of life, the ecology of the planet and so on. A very sad legacy we are leaving those who come after us.

    I pray that those here and elsewhere fighting for raw milk, mainly from family farms, are victorious and shudder to think that soon we will be living in societies where such things have been eradicated and all our (franken)food is bought in box stores like Wal-Mart.

  22. sue maxwell

    I would like to add another thought. I can’t drink milk due to having celiac disease. I have had raw milk in two different places. When living in Belgium, and where I live now in Utah, from a health store which has their own farm with good cows, raw milk and great chicken eggs.

    I also do very specific health testing on a bio-meridian machine which is pretty specific. On one test it indicated I had a proclivity for TB from drinking raw milk. While I am definately for raw milk, I have a new thought about this.

    People and cows inherit things genetically. Suppose these healthy cows had ancestors that were not healthy and they have genetically inherited problems that can be passed on in this more subtle manner.

    I don’t even understand why people drink milk anyway. You can get more calcium from greens, and I have started drinking smoothies every day made from fruit, leafy greens, cocoanut milk, water, and raw eggs for protein.

    I am not knocking raw milk as I believe in eating healthily. I would not drink pasteurized anything.
    But do we really need milk anyway? My view has changed a bit since I had that test. I know, from this testing, that we inherit quite a bit from our ancestors- health problems as well as emotions, attitudes and many other things. So maybe cows are inheriting things from their ancestors, also. Sue

  23. Ash

    Sue, I can’t remember where, but I read that traditionally many milk-making cultures did not drink the raw milk rather fermented/treated it into things like yoghurt and, mainly, cheese. Perhaps this was simply for longevity reasons, but I suspect it was also for safety and digestibility.

    For example, sourdough breads properly fermented are digestible and nutritious whereas yeast-only risen breads (usually in 2-4 hours), although nicely rising, are not really digestible. Which is perhaps why white flour became so popular along with the development of commercial single-strain yeasts. Using such yeasts to process whole grain breads made them indigestible. I suspect there is a similar thing with milk in that although many can handle it well, many cannot. But most people can handle a real cheese (as opposed to pasteurized imitations) that has been properly ‘fermented’ or ‘enzymed’. Not all, of course, but most. And it is extremely nutritious.

  24. sue maxwell

    Yes- I know about fermentation, am trying kefir, but it is pasteurized, as I don’t have time or money to make my own. I understand that principle. But I also understand genetic inheritance.

    If healthy cows came from unhealthy ancestors, perhaps they would inherit their traits, and though raised in a healthy situation, are carrying traits from their unhealthy ancestors.

    I have a grandfather that died of syphilis. A number of months ago, I broke out with some odd bumps on my hairline, that were cyst-like. The next time I was tested, the machine indicated that I had hairline syphilic bumps. The lady who tested me knew nothing about this.

    Also, the test showed a genetic proclivity for cholera infantum. I do alot of genealogy and I had a family in my background that had four babies die of it.

    The understanding of genetic proclivities might be new to some but we can also inherit emotional attributes of our ancestors.

    So, while I am sure that raw milk is best, I now have some doubts in my mind due to this factor. I definately agree with Bernard and not Pasteur. I don’t drink anything else that is pasteurized. I am simply experimenting with this as it has probiotics in it and I ususally take them by bottle. Since my money is tight, I made that switch, but I will switch back.

    I have read the books by that dentist who studied healthy people who had wide palates and good teeth. He did this in remote and different areas of the world- all diets were different but indiginous.

    Since we are, as American, from mixed backgrounds, what is indiginous for us, I wonder? I have pondered this quite a bit. I used to get tested to see what foods worked for me, and now I mostly eat a very alkaline diet including fruits, vegies, tempeh, raw brown rice flatbread, hummus, smoothies and big raw salads with fresh herbs from my garden. So far that is working well.

    If you see my former comments I am all for raw milk and believe Bernard. But now there is this slight question in my mind about possible unknown problems with healthy cows.

  25. Ash

    Sue, this is not to argue with your opinion since I personally believe that opinion is perfectly valid when it comes to issues involving food, health, diet, lifestyle etc. but I found your following sentence intriguing:
    “The understanding of genetic proclivities might be new to some but we can also inherit emotional attributes of our ancestors. ”

    I was just thinking that – before getting there – when you mentioned the syphilis cysts. I think this all relates back to ‘terrain’. If we take as a premise (which many of the modernist/scientific ilk will not accept of course) that the human organism is a mind-body matrix, or you could say a multi-level sphere of being including mental, emotional, physical, environmental etc. (as is the case with all living creatures and also the so-called inanimate phenomena in our perceivable worlds/terrains), then genetic traits function within that overall situation, which includes local energies, emotive tendencies, cultural dynamics and so forth.

    This is why the germ theory is overly limited. It assumes that X germ has Y effect on the human organism even though the evidence is clearly different, namely that a sick person might find him or herself host to an expanding, and at some point life-extinguishing number of pathogenic germs whereas a healthy person, with the same initial exposure to the same germs, will have no problem at all.

    Yes, this could be purely genetic, but my suspicion is that this is more akin to a limited physical aspect of the person’s overall situation but by no means the only one at play.

    This is why I disagree that science can answer the question of raw milk consumption definitively as in being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Such things do not play out in such absolutist fashion.

    As to indigenous food, generally speaking it is that which grows locally. Because again there is more to food than the physical substances alone.

    My two cents!

  26. sue maxwell

    Well, I have been through a terrible problem, that nearly killed me twice, that has compromised my health for the past 17 years, so I am more susceptible. But I am keeping my terrain healthy. I am doing healing in many areas.

    Fortunately I had built my health to the greatest it had ever been before this challenge entered my life. Otherwise, I might not have survived it.

    Fortunately, bio-meridian testing can catch things before they develop and stop the development. That is why I take remedies made for me, and the cysts are gone and other things improving.

    I agree that what is local is best, but in some states we don’t have much that is local, so it turns out to be an individual approach to resolve.

    Anyway, I think I have said enough, as the basic premise of this site is totally right in my view. Sue

  27. latte_girl

    Why do people want to choose sides between Bernard and Pasteur? Contemporaries, colleagues, and friends, they saw their work as complimentary not contradictory. They did not discredit the other.

    In fact, Bernard helped Pasteur conduct the first pasteurization experiment.

    And Bernard was far from a scientific saint. He believed in animal testing without restriction. Bernard was known for dissecting living animals (without anesthetic) in the name of science. His methods were so barbaric his wife (after leaving him on the issue) spent the rest of her life campaigning against this type of research. It is said [with regards to animal testing] that Bernard advanced the understanding of human physiology at the expense of humanity.

    There is an inherent danger in choosing an out-of-context quote as the basis of an argument. You might find yourself missing the whole picture. In the end, both Bernard and Pasteur made amazing contributions to science. Mainly, they advanced the experimental model; emphasizing that scientific theory is not enough, it must be tested and proven. Both believed that scientific discovery was an evolutionary process, and that they were there as a stepping stone to future discovery, not as the proverbial “be-all, end-all”. It was the obligation of every generation to question the prevailing scientific wisdom and determine if that wisdom was indeed true and relevant.

  28. sue maxwell

    I think that in all bodies of knowledge you must understand the history of its development, and that these bodies of knowledge do not necessarily evolve into better ideas. Sometimes we go backwards in our knowledge, and often knowledge is lost from the past.

    Perhaps the fact that iatrogenic disease is a huge killer in this country says something about the present use of drugs to cure things. Medical science is about stopping symptoms, rather than teaching good health practices.

    If the germ theory is so correct, then why are so many people dying despite the efforts to kill them. All of us have various bacteria and other benign and malignant things in our bodies, and if our bodies are healthy, we can most likely deal with them without a problem.

    We all have different viewpoints on health, and it is useless to discuss it with some types of people; I have learned that from experience. We are free to choose the way we want to take care of our health.

    I have tried many approaches, and what helps me the most is individual testing of what my body needs are at present- which can change with time and circumstances.

    I don’t feel a need to drink milk, as I prefer a good quality of water. Much illness comes from a lack of water, also; most Americans are dehydrated. I think there are so many reasons why we are not the number one healthy country, but low on the list.

    I am glad this is a discussion and no one attacks anyone. I have seen some discussions that are just attacks. Phew! Sue

  29. latte_girl

    I wholeheartedly agree with Sue on the water issue. Too often in our countries, people choose to drink beverages that offer little to no nutritional value (i.e. soda pop).

    But water comes with its own set of health debates. Most of us drink water from a city system that has been chemically treated to ensure its safety.

    Sure, bottled untreated spring water is available. But it comes in plastic bottles. Chemicals from plastic bottles have been known to leach into the water and cause health issues. There’s no telling how long a bottle of water has been sitting on the store shelves collecting toxins.

    I have a friend who lives outside of the city. Her water is derived from a well. After her family got sick from drinking the well water, it became their policy to always boil the well water before drinking it.

    When I look at these 3 choices, I tend to favour boiled (cooked) well water as the healthiest option as there has been no chemical interference.

    Unfortunately, I have no current access to raw milk that has been produced under safe, sanitary circumstances.

    I’d rather drink a pasteurized (cooked) product than one that has been chemically treated. In fact, I fear the day that the pharmaceutical industry creates a “quick fix” that makes pasteurization unnecessary. Something tells me that the “cure” (chemical treatment) will be worse than the “disease”(pasteurization).

  30. sue maxwell

    I have access to Kangen Water from the health clinic I go to. I cannot afford a machine, but the water is absolutely amazing in its health benefits. I buy five gallon bottles of distilled water for water storage rotation, although lately I drink so much Kangen water that I am not rotating it very much. I add minerals to the bottled water. I never drank much water growing up as I didn’t like the taste of tap water; so now I am rehydrating myself, one of the man values of Kangen water. If you read The Body’s Many Cries for Water, written by a physician who was a prisoner of war and not tortured, but allowed to treat the others, and only had water to treat them, you would be amazed to read his research on the diseases connected with not drinking enough water. After being released, because he had so much success with the water while held captive, he researched the subject and wrote a very enlightening book.

  31. Ash

    Funny, I just heard of Kangen two days ago. By digging around, it seems that another company has the same sort of thing at a lower price, namely the IonWays line (cheapest being the Venus model around $1100) which includes both ionizer and filter system, which latter need regular replacement.

    Meanwhile, for my organic bakery from a good well I installed an unusual addition using non-mechanical vortex method (specially designed copper or steel pipes which emulate the natural vortex movements found in nature and which vitalize, as well as purify, water) from http://www.alivewater.net/prod/owr.htm . Of course such a thing cannot be verified easily, but there are some interesting articles and links on this site about water.

    Story about my vitalizer: first, I said my well water is good. It is usually but this summer there was a drought and the water temperature in the well went up above 65F and bacteria started to grow in it. Not good! But that’s not all. My (ex-stray and still half wild) cat started asking for water from the tap, which usually she only does in the dead of winter when everything outside is frozen over. But although asking, she wouldn’t drink the water from the tap. She also didn’t like it after being filtered.

    However, 30 minutes after installing the vitalizer gizmo into the main water line into the holding tank and flushing the system out for 15 minutes or so, she started drinking from the tap. I could still taste bacterial residue etc. but she didn’t care. Something about the water had changed such that her animal instincts told her it was good. Interestingly, she now never drinks outside – it seems. The drought is over, plenty of fresh water outside but she wants it only from the tap. And even though it really doesn’t need filtration any more, if I offer her water from the filtered tap – which is also using the vitalized water – she won’t drink it, only from the unfiltered.

    The water has a brighter look to it, cleans things better, and I get a slight ‘hit’ when drinking it.

    I also like the look of the ‘structured’ water products, though maybe these are the same, in essence, as the ionized waters. http://www.waterpollutionfilters.com/vitalizer-plus.htm .

    Also, the Berkey filtration systems can be used for drinking stagnant pond water they are so good. Many strange groups marketing them but the technology is simple, proven over time, does not require electricity, and seems to work. One day I’ll be getting one but for now I’m set even though my current filtration system – from Home Depot – leaves a bad aftertaste from the plastic in one of the filters, so fairly soon, when have more extra cash, intend to replace it with and under-the-sink Daulton system (the company behind the original Berkeys) which can be configured with various filters in sequence for city, country, polluted, heavy metal, flouride etc. etc.

    If I had a dairy farm and was providing drinking water, I would get an industrial-sized revitalizer unit for them.

    But I agree: water is IMPORTANT!

  32. latte_girl

    Completely off the topic, but because today is Remembrance Day (Veteran’s Day in the US) take a detour to YouTube and watch “A Pittance of Time” by Terry Kelly. Every year I watch the video, and every year I cry.

    Ash, I’m just wondering where your bakery is. Finding organic fresh-baked goods is always a challenge.

  33. Ash

    http://www.frenchroadbakery.tk

    Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia Canada.

    Just starting it. Having many problems with supplies, like steady delivery of flour (no local farmers grow wheat, let alone organic), access to the farmer’s market (not letting in new bakers even though only one other is organic and none have wood-fired brick ovens), steady supply of cheap wood (transportation costs often exceed wood costs) and so on.

    Times are getting tight!

    But most areas in N.A. now have farmer’s markets and most such markets have at least one organic baker, though not all do proper sourdoughs (as I do) meaning that whole grain breads that are risen using commercial yeast only remain essentially indigestible and therefore possibly even worse for you than crappy white sandwich bread! But of course, that’s just my opinion (though recent studies about sourdoughs do tend to confirm that they really are different from yeast-only risen breads).

  34. jon

    I drink 4-5 gallons of raw milk a week… never had a problem. There was this one time where I couldn’t get raw milk for 2 weeks so I went out and bought Organic Pasturized milk… My stomach was all tore up!

  35. when did this thread roll into water?? (evolving bacteria…?)

    all these things revered in our society today – vaccines, pasteurization, forced mass education (public school) – they are all vestiges of the industrial revolution that was NOT about people and health and safety ect ect for the masses – it was about profit for the elite, creating well-behaved, homogenized populations to man the machinery of profit and war – and once chosen, these paths become entrenched, and molded for the evolving purposes of the controlling elite – i’m not talking conspiracy theory per say, but i do believe that all these things get established, “purposefully” entrenched and then propagated – sadly with the support of those well-meaning ignorants who DO pathetically believe that all these things were originally “great advances for mankind” to help the masses – and then fight to KEEP them even though they are exceptionally unhealthy or downright damaging -

    all these now-hotly debated topics are the result of a waking-up of enough people to see this formula and revolt against the ongoing attempts to control and contain.

    Here is a discussion about goats milk being very likely a paleolithic foodstuff – and i seriously doubt it was pasteurized waaaay back then:

    http://daiasolgaia.com/?p=1302

    Ravi
    DaiaSolgaia
    Discoveries for a Full Life

    • TheGodlessBuddha

      ohnoes! Those gosh darned industrialist capitalist pigs trying to make sure the masses get education and good health now can haz profitz! Of course if it was only actually progressives from the late 19 and early 20th century who decided crazy things like everyone, regardless background or wealth should have and deserves a basic repository of knowledge, called education, or if progressive members of society members of society have access to things like clean food or healthier children… only if. Oh, wait! it was, it was! Your premise that these safeguards were created by “wealthy elites” to create and keep drones of masses in line for profit and war is faulty at its root. Granted, there may be profit derived from some of these activities but as a whole, no. There is little to no profit in public education, pasteurization costs a corporation money that hurts its bottom line and drug companies derive very little or almost no profit from vaccination. We need public education and we need it to be better than it is in the US, in order for our society to continually move forward. Since human minds function, develop and learn pretty much the same way in the majority of individuals, and humans work and learn best in groups, teaching kids in groups of 15-25 is most efficient and works best. Vaccinations have helped eradicate or nearly eradicate a few major diseases that were considered death sentences just 10-15 decades ago. Pasteurization makes milk, yogurt, and other farmed nonvegetarian foods not deadly to eat today beyond a certain shelf life of a few days to maybe a week, allowing that food to reach more parts of our society and making us better fed, healthier and better nourished as individuals and a society. Those are facts. Calling anyone who doesn’t believe your version of history “mindless drones” does disservice to very important historical advances that progressives have bought forth into this country that the world now shares in and benefits from. Yes there are those that have figured out how to make profits from some of these activities, such as for profit education, for profit farming or for profit drig development and dissemination but make no mistake about it, we live in much better times that did those that lived in the paleolithic age. I’m sure paleolithic goat’s milk tasted good or didn’t kill you if you drank it right out of the goat’s teat, but maybe it did because paleolithic humans lived much shorter, less healthier lives and died from many more varied (and usually unknown at the time) causes, including toxicity from rancid milk or other foods, if they made it past the difficult developmental stage of birth. As a species, we live much longer and healthier lives with less of us dying from disease or infection, especially during birth,, as evidenced by the fact that there are well over 6 billion of us on the planet. If these advances were so “damaging” or “unhealthy”, how or why does our population keep on exploding? The evidence of reality can be pretty damaging.

      • fightin'forthelittleguy

        I think the real issue is being ignored here. No one says that everyone has to agree on raw milk. No one is forcing raw milk into anyone’s home. If you want pasteurized, it’s in the store, happy drinking. Yet If I want raw, and someone is willing to sell it, why can’t I buy it from them? Why is the government being allowed to prohibit my choice?

        Shouldn’t I have the choice to decide if I want raw milk vs pasteurized milk?

        Cow/goat shares should not involve government, private contracts between a farmer & a consumer should not be interfered with. It’s a simple question of choice, and the rights of individuals to make that choice for themselves.

  36. Sean

    Your absolutely right about the pasteur quote. I was looking for this evidence myself and could not find it. In any effort to challenge the main stream, accuracy is extremely important. They have the means and the motive to turn a small inaccuracy into a massive credibility issue.

  37. sue maxwell

    Well no you have the problem of cows being fed genetically modified food and the milk gets contaminated in another way. I am glad I am allergic to milk and wheat, as it saves me alot of trouble, but people were much healthier when they ate real food and not the junk they eat today. Statistics indicate we are going to have the unhealthiest generation of children, and things like AS are increasing- so what is the rising generation going to be like, how functional will they be, and how soon will they have their heart attacks, kidney disease, cancer, etc! Sue

  38. Pingback: You have been lied to about germs « It's Better Now

  39. Pingback: You have been lied to about germs « It's Better Now

  40. Pingback: You have been lied to about germs « nextlevelnutritiondotcom

  41. Pingback: Louie PASTEUR’s deathbed words: “Bernard was right; the pathogen is nothing; the terrain is everything.” « 3 Wheeled Cheese

  42. Joy

    It’s propaganda; say it enough times, people start believing it, then a lie becomes the truth.

  43. Louis Pasteur has realized only at the time of his death bed telling “Bernard was right, the pathogen is nothing; the terrain (internal environment) is everything..” but it was too late for the medical community to turn back, they can’t do it.. Well – forget about the research or science, anything will become research or science even though it has no solid proofs. Darwin will become Hero, Louis Pasteur will become Hero – whereas Bechamp, Bernard, Enderlein will become zero even though they have discovered many things (all discoveries of them i won’t accept at all, but their discoveries are not like blunder mistake like Louis Pasteur’s Germ Theory). This world is only with the fools who gives tips to make money but not help or serve man kind..!

  44. sue maxwell

    But it is our responsibility to make sure that their work is remembered for those who are willing to listen.

  45. jsa_ceduna

    “No one is forcing raw milk into anyone’s home. If you want pasteurized, it’s in the store, happy drinking. Yet If I want raw, and someone is willing to sell it, why can’t I buy it from them? Why is the government being allowed to prohibit my choice? Shouldn’t I have the choice to decide if I want raw milk vs pasteurized milk?”

    Please understand, I support the people’s right to freedom to choose what they eat and drink. My wife recently found a source for raw milk and it thrilled she gets to try this for our diets. A friend is using the raw milk to make kifir, and it is great.

    But it struck me that this portion of the above quote;

    ” and someone is willing to sell it, why can’t I buy it from them?”

    could also apply to sex.
    Why does the government get to decide what is allowed between consenting adults?

  46. Pingback: How Milk Became So Dangerous

  47. Interesting.
    I have struggled with ‘the truth’ as it relates to all health issues in great depth for three years now. All sides of each argument tend to be passionate about their position.
    Taking the 50,000′ foot view may I say firstly that science has a very questionable track record through history. The world is flat was a proven fact of its day of course until proven otherwise. It is not necessary to cite the thousands of other so-called facts that current science has bebunked, supposedly. The challenge is to wade through the miriad of material and make up your own mind, ……………for the moment and have an open mind for the future. All too often when I read an article that seems a little off the wall and do some research I find the vested interests at the outset. Perfest example is the scare mongering over bio-identical hormones. When you follow the trail back you find representatives of the very pharmaceutical companies whose profits are jeopardized by the sale of much more reasonable and safer hormones. I sight the large double blind study done in 2002 that was stopped because the women taking the leading horse hormones were being diagnosed with cancer at a significantly higher rate than those taking the placebo. For all the details you can research the information for yourselves.
    The problem for the research and scientific community is demonstrated by the simple existence of so many websites like this. The public no longer trusts you, you have lost credibility in the eyes of so many.
    This I find most tragic, disheartening …………..and, scary for John Q. Public.
    Back to Raw Milk. Have any of you Scientists pointed out a single study of a fatality in the last 50 years in North America, that was caused by the exclusive consumption of raw milk that has been pier reviewed to demonstrate that raw milk is fundamentally, in all circumstances, dangerous?
    I have made a point of speaking to more than 100 dairymen and their family members over the last year, young and old alike, about what milk they drink, and off the record, with out exception, none of them would drink pasteurized milk.

  48. questioning

    Tried to find the comment in reference to living longer, but it didn’t jump out at me. This is an excellent example of the facts being twisted by the so-called experts to aline with their belief system.
    In fact if one examines human longevity from the age of 20, in other words removing the time statistics pertaining to infant mortality, undernourishment during the growing years, and therefore acknowledge that science has indeed made some progress, we find that in fact we only living to the same age or perhaps slightly shorter than back in 1900. My own family is a perfect example; my great grandparents lived into their late 90′s, my grandparents all into their mid to late 80′s, my father died at 76……………………….my brother contracted cancer at 21 ……………….

  49. Luc

    I have 9 brothers and sisters and we all got raised on raw milk. The eldest is now 75 and the youngest 55 and we still all enjoy very healthy lives. Has raw milk got something to do with this? I think so as we used to consume raw milk at the rate of 12 quarts a day.

  50. Chris

    The “immune system” doesn’t exist. Auto-immunity is an example of how blinded we have become by this flawed and fraudulent theory.

    Read Stefan Lanka
    Dr. Hamer (German New Medicine)

  51. Milk is For Calfs

    Milk is meant for calfs, not humans… Pointless discussion on whether raw or pasteurized is better :)

  52. Milk

    Drink milk, then go die. Problem solved.

  53. Pingback: Cancer Is Curable - Fifty To Life

  54. Pingback: How to Really Bolster Your Immune System Against Disease : Natural Society

  55. Pingback: How to Really Bolster Your Immune System Against Infectious Disease | Living For Longer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s