“What does it profit a man?” — farmer Michael Schmidt — on our culture of profiting from death and destruction

By Michael Schmidt, special to The Bovine:

Profits paving the way to a bright future in rural Ontario? Photo by Michael Schmidt.

Health Canada, CFIA and the local health departments across Canada are on the loose to chase the wrong goose.

First of all please read the following excerpt based on official data from the US.

Since Government is  relying a lot on the research data from the US, I will assume that I can do the same thing.

(2000-2010 – death and serious patient outcomes from FDA approved drugs) “These data describe the outcome of the patient as defined in U.S. reporting regulations (21 CFR 310.305, 314.80, 314.98, 600.80) and Forms FDA 3500 and 3500A (the MedWatch forms). Serious means that one or more of the following outcomes were documented in the report: death, hospitalization, life-threatening, disability, congenital anomaly and/or other serious outcome. Documenting one or more of these outcomes in a report does not necessarily mean that the suspect product(s) named in the report was the cause of these outcomes.”

Editor’s Note: These data show “deaths” totaling 452,780 and “serious outcomes” equaling 2,816,297 occurred during the eleven years from 2000 to 2010 as tabulated from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System for prescription drugs.

Comparing the five years (2001-2005) with the five years (2006-2010) finds that the number of deaths grew by +66.7% for the second time frame as compared to first. For the same comparative spans, serious patient leaped by almost three quarters (+77.5%).

AERS1 Patient Outcomes by Year

Year  — Death Serious

2000 — 19,445 153,818

2001 — 23,988 166,384

2002 — 28,181 159,000

2003 — 35,173 177,008

2004 — 34,928 199,510

2005 — 40,238 257,604

2006 — 37,465 265,130

2007 — 36,834 273,276

2008 — 49,958 319,741

2009 — 63,846 373,535

2010 — 82,724 471,291

Total 2000-2010 — 452,780 2,816,297

Total 2001-2005 — 162,508 959,506

Total 2006-2010 — 270,827 1,702,973

% Chg +66.7% +77.5%

1 AERS = Adverse Events Reporting System. This system managed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) contains over four million reports of adverse events and reflects data from 1969 to the present. Data from AERS are presented as summary statistics. These summary statistics cover data received over the last ten years. These data are presented at the individual report level; some of the numbers may reflect duplicate reporting due to factors such as follow-up reports received on a case or different persons reporting on the same patient case.

Source: “AERS Patient Outcomes by Year,” Food and Drug Administration (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, March 31, 2010).

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveil

This is indeed astonishing.

To put this into a perspective these numbers are equal to a jumbo jet crashing every day in the US.

This has been the subject of some other great articles before. Can anyone imagine that airlines would be still flying with such a death rate?

No, for two reasons:

1.) nobody would want to fly.

2.) I am sure the air safety agency would ban the planes or the pilots to fly.

However, the pharmaceutical industry, the doctors and hospitals just keep “flying” in spite of the steadily increasing death rates. And we are watching in awe to let this happen?

Ontario’s budget will be approved today. 10% percent of the Province’s income comes from tobacco taxes.

According to the chief medical officer of health in Ontario every 30 minutes somebody dies from smoking.

Hey, death makes money. If the cause of death provides an income for politicians, bureaucrats and regulators than this is the cost of doing business. I certainly understand the reasoning for that.

Now let’s look at the lives of these 41 or 31 Shropshire sheep. They disappeared just in time to escape the bloody hands of bureaucrats trying to prove that they are sick or not sick. Who cares anymore, once they are dead they are gone and with it valuable genes of a heritage breed.

Where was the OSPCA, trying to prevent this cruelty?

Oh, I forgot they are currently chasing Amish farmers.

In regards to the millions of dollars spent by the CFIA to eradicate scrapie, which has absolutely no consequences to human health, I wonder why the CFIA is not taking any actions in regards to the growing threat of Johne’s disease, present in 40% percent of the dairy cattle in Canada.

There are indications that Crohn’s disease is directly linked to Johne’s disease in cattle.

If anybody has some information as to what the CFIA has been doing to investigate this and what actions are being taken, please let me know.

I assume if similar measures (as with scrapie) would be implemented, the resulting imminent collapse of the dairy sector would  be reason enough to ignore the issue and sweep it under the table.

So let’s kill the sheep, let’s smokers die, let’s tolerate thousands of deaths as long as they make money to feed the hungry bureaucrats and as long as they are not jumbo jets because that would be hard to watch on television. The invisible suffering and dying is the politically correct way.

Cheers to the culture of death.

17 Comments

Filed under News

17 responses to ““What does it profit a man?” — farmer Michael Schmidt — on our culture of profiting from death and destruction

  1. Beverley Viljakainen

    The good news is that there ARE other ways . . . and many people are leading the way for those who are in want of direction. We need only open ourselves to the possibilities.

  2. Sib

    MIchael, those are exactly my thoughts. And you’ve expressed them in the clearest possible manner.

    Our family has experienced the culture of death firsthand over the span of 11 months when my mother-in-law and brother-in-law passed away. They were both heavy smokers. Although they had other health issues unrelated to smoking, we are certain that smoking contributed immensely to their demise. There was cancer, lung disease, COPD, heart disease and liver disease involved. They both knew they should quit smoking but were powerless to stop. Everything was treated with more and more pharmaceuticals. The doctors did what they were trained to do. Now we have no mother and no brother.

    Many times I wanted to take some raw milk to them because I knew it would offer some nutritional support for the other conditions they faced (my mother-in-law had celiac disease and lactose intolerance), but because of the ridiculous laws governing raw milk distribution, they were deprived of a nutritious food that might have helped them in some small way. I am disgusted with many of the so-called “public health” decisions and laws our governments make.

    I wonder if people know about the latest dictate from Health Canada — Vitamin D3 can no longer be sold in 2,000 IU and 4,000 IU units. It’s being removed from the stores. Only 1,000 IU units or less are permitted.

    Our government is causing so many problems for people who only want to look after their own bodies (literally, their personal property) in the way that they see fit. Over a period of time WE may start getting sick because of this constant stress. Then what? The natural sources we would have used to combat that stress would have been taken away from us. Yet we cannot give up this struggle for access to alternative routes to REAL HEALTH or all is lost for future generations.

    Every human has an inherent right to whole, unadulterated, nutrient-dense foods because that is what the cells of the human body require in order to optimally function and remain healthy. It cannot be any other way, no matter what any government entity, food or chemical corporation, or pharmaceutical industry says. It’s the law of Nature or God or the universe or human physiology — call it what you will. No one can argue the physiological facts.

    Courage, Michael, courage.

    P.S. Watch the movie IDIOCRACY. This is exactly where things are heading at this moment. Read FOLKS, THIS AIN’T NORMAL by Joel Salatin. This is exactly how things could be if we can convince enough people to wake up and love their bodies enough to change what they put into them. And what they will allow others to put into them.

  3. Thank you, Michael. You hit the nail on the head. Many slow private deaths can be encouraged and tolerated much more easily in our culture than dramatic public deaths and illnesses. I think the same phenomenon allows our disgusting factory food system, which gives us meat and dairy products from sick animals raised in cruel conditions.

  4. John

    As far as I know, CFIA is not involved with the control of Johne’s (MAP). On the other hand, DFO and OMAFRA are very busy trying to assist Ontario dairy farmers to manage the disease and reduce potential exposure via milk. Eradication likely isn’t an option, but increased testing and strategies to reduce transmission to calves should be helpful in the long term. In some jurisdictions, pasteurization temperatures/times have been increased to kill MAP spores.
    I’d be surprised if cows on raw-milk farms were all MAP-free; so if there is a human-health risk, it might be worth investigating their status.
    When it comes to immediate risk, however, MAP-risk pales in comparison to the recent E coli case in Oregon (48 family herd-share, 19 ill, 15 of these under 19 years (4 with HUS)). Sounds to me a bit like a plane crash, but not news here?

  5. rawmilkwar

    High John
    Cow Share Canada accredited farms have to be tested and free of Johnies. Part of the protocol.
    In regards to the Oregon outbreak I agree it should be posted to make sure people understand the reality of food safety.
    In regards to DFO and OMAFRA being busy trying to control and manage the decease is exactly the approach one should take in all cases.
    Managing risks in a constructive way.
    In regards to managing MAP at one of the spring dairy meetings a professor talked about this issue to dairy farmers.
    The majority of her talk was how to talk to the press, to concerned consumers an public in general.
    Pre scripted answers were presented farmers should use to play down the danger.
    The Oregon e-Coli outbreak simply supports the need to look at and implement standards and procedures in raw milk production to make sure that risks are managed properly. Just like all the accepted high risk foods on the shelves in the supermarket.

  6. rawmilkwar

    MAP risk pales to the recent outbreak in Oregon????
    John I think in both cases playing down the risk is irresponsible.
    Crohns decease is a major ,major health threat to a growing number of people. The convenient argument that it is not conclusively linked, yet, to Johns decease does not diminish the deep concerns of many.
    The Oregon outbreak should be reported to highlight the need for standards and certification but more to in fact educate that food safety starts not at the teat rather with the entire farming system.
    Thanks for your comment.

    • nedlud

      Sickness is not what you think. Or, rather it is.

      When you can eliminate bribes, kickbacks, extortion, hanky panky, gambling, rape and murder, and the huge bureaucratic -uhh- overreach (zealous pompous self-serving megalomaniacs and the whole hierarchy of ‘hiring and firing’ that supports them and keeps them in power) from YOUR standards and YOUR certification policies, you will have eliminated MOST ALL of the sickness.

      Had any radioactive food lately? How about some oil-saturated sea food?

      Milk!

      Ha!

      signed,
      disturbed by it all

      • rawmilkwar

        Nedlud
        Indeed you spelled it out.
        Sometimes I wonder where to start, maybe waiting until the current system of insanity implodes might be the smart thing to do. Still, unless we create an alternative for the sake of our own sanity we might as well perish in the virtual world of illusions separated from the real world that is.
        What is real??????
        Regards
        Michael

    • John

      I tend to agree. But, when it comes to these risks (E coli and MAP) I’m not certain all the potential food safety efforts that one can muster via farming methods can always guarantee milk that is safe (v/v E coli and MAP). It seems likely that if you have cows, the cows will have 0157 (although the bacterial population can be reduced, but likely not eliminated, via management). It also seems likely that if you have cows, on most farms there will be MAP. Many cows infected with MAP currently test negative and appear healthy until the condition progresses. If there is MAP on your farm, it might take decades to eliminate it, if at all.
      These bacteria are, therefore, likely to be present (or I’d think one should assume that they are).
      Certification by CSC might help reduce the risks, but my sense is most people who are interested in providing raw milk are so because they don’t want to be governed, just as I suppose the Principles of CSC didn’t want to be governed.

  7. nedlud

    @Michael:

    Thanks. Not sure which Michael I am talking to. I am guessing right now, the one that operates this site.

    Producing healthy quality milk is simple. It is so easy a ‘caveman can do it’. It does require, however, physical work, personal touch, observation and a cooperation with the cows and with Nature.

    It is also simple to transmit this knowledge from person-to-person. It is as simple as speaking the truth.

    None of the above, is what your ‘top-level bureaucrat’ wishes to do however. So they bludgeon everybody to death with paperwork and regulation. And in the process make themselves both feared and famous.

    HURRAH.

    regards back, keep up the good work, we are doing something importand even if it seems like we are losing…

    nedlud

  8. miro malish

    It seems to me that the only comparison made here that has some real substance is the comparison of Johnnes disease in dairy cattle to Scrapie in Sheep and the management protocols of CFIA toward them.

    The deaths related to prescription drugs is another problem in and of itself, that we shall see continue to rise by virtue of the demographics of any aging boomer generation.

    Tobacco as well has a distinct relationship to personal freedom and addiction, to name but a few.

    I don’t think this comparison of Scrapie to Johnnes needs these other points, and feel that the inclusion of them only gives the impression that tactics of persuasion are required to make the point.

    I find it interesting that we choose to excersize genocide on life forms relating to disease, but in any other context the word itself is taboo. Are we so stuck in the quagmire of the ideals of economic growth that we may turn such a blind eye to the gross substance of our actions? Has industiral motivation made us liars and villains willing to parade the company line and slaughter our first born in the name of necessity?

    This science has become more masterbation then respect for the unknown.

    The real problem may be found not in policy or agency and what not, but in the epistomology from which our reasoning comes forth.

    • Peter

      Well said. I particularly like your desire to contemplate facts in their context, and not take things out of context to gain political points. It is refreshing to see. I also like the word “epistemology”. Didn’t know it before. Thank you.

  9. @John. There is nothing that we can put in our mouths that is 100% safe. If it is dead from pasteurization or irradiation, long term it doesn’t nourish us so although the end result usually doesn’t get connected to the cause, it causes illness therefore that food is not safe either. At least with real food we have the benefit of the nutritional quality that increases our health and strengthens our defence systems. Nothing in life can be guaranteed safe so looking for a way to guarantee 100% safety with any food is a dead end street. Humanity has been eating “dangerous” foods for centuries. Yes some have gotten sick and some have died. More will be sick and die from a sterilized food system and fake foods.

    • John

      Margo. I agree we can all have our own opinions about such matters. I am less interested in the bigger picture, rather I have developed a specific interest in raw milk, primarily because I see it as another potential HUS-risk to young children (the Oregon case might be the most clear-cut case linked to raw milk to date, as can be seen on The Complete Patient blog). To me, another child suffering the life-devastating effects of E coli 0157-induced renal damage (no matter the source: water, sprouts, salad mixes………..) is absolutely one too many. Pasteurization of milk might not be perfect, but it alone is the only approach I see that will achieve as close to 100% safety as possible in this one regard. To me, the minimal loss of nutritional or other factors after a brief heat-treatment (to pasteurize, not sterilize) is a small price to pay (if any). I have no idea why non-farm children are so sensitive to E coli, but they are, and raw milk is just too risky for them in my view.
      If it helps, I am happy to support the other elements promoted by the participants who contribute here (small farms, local/direct sales, pastured cows, organic, biodynamic methods etc), but only within the current legal/operational framework of this excellent country.

  10. Pingback: Inspiration From Someone Who Should Be A Politician « Balance Your Apple

  11. Patric Lyster

    Once again, please use the facts and not your version only.
    Quote “Now let’s look at the lives of these 41 or 31 Shropshire sheep. They disappeared just in time to escape the bloody hands of bureaucrats trying to prove that they are sick or not sick. Who cares anymore, once they are dead they are gone and with it valuable genes of a heritage breed.”
    If you didn’t care why bring them up? What is more, please prove that there is or will be a loss of valuable genetics. By her own admission, almost all of them are unregistered. If their genetics are so valuable to the breed, why has she not been registering them? Don’t say it is bacause of the quarantine, because she had not registered anything for a few years prior. Additionally she has admitted to producing unuseable, unwanted sheep from her breeding, so are these sheep really all that valuable genetically?
    Fact, she has not valued their genetics high enough to register them and says that her breeding stock sales are what pay for her registrations. By that statement, it appears that her breeding stock sales have not been enough, in the years prior to the quarantine, to cover her registration costs. Does this mean that no one else values her genetics or why couldn’t she sell enough to cover registrations (which were less than $15 per head)?
    Also to note, she was offered a means to preserve genetics, she refused, and that is a fact.
    Quote “Now let’s look at the lives of these 41 or 31 Shropshire sheep.” So sad when you don’t know the number, because Ms. Jones legal counsel can’t even keep the number straight for their press release. for me, when they can’t keep the information straight for a press release, their credibilty could be questioned. In the past, I had to point out erroneous information that they issued in a press release. They did correct it, but why does someone else have to point this out to them?
    Facts are facts. Present the facts and I have no issue, but to manipulate them is not acceptable. So please tell me, is it 31 or 41 sheep. Or are you saying that 10 head doesn’t matter? If so then perhaps 41 head do not matter, nearly as much as you would like people to believe.

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