“Tale of two calves — one raised on raw milk and the other on pasteurized” story attracting a fresh resurgence of interest

From the stats page of the Bovine blog

A Tale of Two Calves, the report on an experiment carried out over several months at Glencolton farms, raising one calf on raw milk and the other on store-bought pasteurized milk has quite justifiably been the all-time most popular post on the Bovine blog, with a total tally of something over 17,000 hits.

Although it was published back in June of last year, the story has recently been attracting major interest, accounting for something like 1000 hits a day over the past two days. Somebody out there noticed it, and spread the word to their friends. Thank you to whoever that was!

Other older stories that continue to attract major interest include our feature on A1 and A2 milk, a story about how fat people are affected by the swine flu, and our report on how cattle in the U.S. are fed chicken manure as feed.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under News

3 responses to ““Tale of two calves — one raised on raw milk and the other on pasteurized” story attracting a fresh resurgence of interest

  1. thebovine

    Thanks to this latest flurry of interest, the hit count on the Two Calves story is now over 20,000!

  2. Pingback: Tweets that mention “Tale of two calves — one raised on raw milk and the other on pasteurized” story attracting a fresh resurgence of interest | The Bovine -- Topsy.com

  3. fighting mad, mad as hell

    Hey Mooo, chew on this tidbit!
    About all those scientific studies:

    “naturalnews.com printable article Originally published January 5 2012
    Busted! Scientists leave out data to produce bogus findings
    by S. L. Baker, features writer
    (NaturalNews) Clinical trials of drugs and other medical therapies are carefully carried out and are the very gold standard of scientific proof, right? According to an in-depth review of this question just published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ,) the answer is no. In fact, the BMJ is sounding the alarm that data reported by scientists is too often not the truth — because the researchers leave out inconvenient evidence. The result of facts-gone-missing could well be harming patients, spiking up healthcare costs by the selling of medical treatments based on bogus findings, and threatening the very integrity of medicine.
    These warnings come from multiple papers released by the BMJ. The whistle-blowing authors of these articles examined the extent, causes, consequences of hidden facts, figures, and other data scientists discover as they do human trials. It turns out this is no “once in a while” kind of problem, either. The BMJ claims a “large proportion of evidence from human trials is unreported, and much of what is reported is done so inadequately.”
    In an editorial, Dr. Richard Lehman from the University of Oxford and BMJ Clinical Epidemiology Editor, Dr. Elizabeth Loder, nail the current state of medical research as a “culture of haphazard publication and incomplete data disclosure.” They call for full access to raw trial data to allow better understanding of the benefits and harms of many treatments.
    Bottom line: when data is left out, the missing facts distort the scientific record and published results of a study. This then leads doctors to make potentially dangerous clinical decisions about what drugs or procedures patients need because the docs are relying on skewed and even bogus “evidence.”
    Conveniently missing facts left out of drug trials and more Papers in the current issue of BMJ include a study by Dr. Beth Hart and colleagues, which document how unpublished data is “conveniently missing” from many published meta-analyses of drug trials. That’s right. Big Pharma’s pills and potions are often pushed based on studies that simply ignore and leave out major data about what was really discovered about a medication lacking of benefits, potential dangers, side effects and more. Dr. Hart’s team argues that access to full trial data is necessary to allow drugs to be independently assessed.
    Two additional studies show the requirements for mandatory trial registration and timely sharing of results are poorly followed, if at all. For example, it turns out that less than half of US National Institutes of Health funded trials are published in a peer reviewed journal within 30 months of completion and only 22 percent of trials that are supposed to be subject to mandatory reporting had results available within one year of completion.
    “When the word mandatory turns out to mandate so little, the need for stronger mechanisms of enforcement becomes very clear,” the researchers report.
    And what happens when ethical, dedicated scientists try to assess true harms vs benefits of Big Pharma drugs and other interventions? It’s not a pretty picture for their careers, apparently. Additional studies published in the special BMJ issue highlight the many difficulties these researchers face when they try to buck the system.
    Dr. Lehman and Dr. Loder, however, are bravely speaking out and directly saying that a concealment of data in clinical trials is anything but unusual. They label this “a serious ethical breach” and demand that clinical researchers who fail to disclose data “should be subject to disciplinary action by professional organizations. These changes have long been called for, and delay has already caused harm. The evidence we publish shows that the current situation is a disservice to research participants, patients, health systems, and the whole endeavor of clinical medicine.”
    For more information:
    http://www.bmj.com/
    http://www.naturalnews.com/medical_errors.html
    All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit http://www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml

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