Michael Schmidt and raw milk in the October edition of “Readers’ Digest”

From David E. Gumpert on The Complete Patient blog:

Michael Schmidt. Photo via The Complete Patient blog.

“There is quite a remarkable article in the October issue of Readers Digest Canada, which credits Michael Schmidt’s nearly twenty-year struggle on behalf of raw milk with helping usher in the new scientific fascination with the “microbiome.”

In a ten-page spread, “Clean Freak”, which focuses heavily on Schmidt’s 2011 hunger strike as well as his court cases over the years, Schmidt makes the case that many here, like Dave Milano, Miguel, and Mark McAfee, have made here for years, most recently following my previous post. TheReaders Digest article, unfortunately, is only available for those willing to pay $4.50 to access the entire October issue of Readers Digest. It’s worth reading simply to get a view of  the breadth of research going on in this arena, and to see how far the media have come in making the connection between raw milk, the microbiome, and pathogens.  

Here are a few quotes:

“Schmidt argues, moreover, that we can’t fully predict the consequences  of wiping out the naturally occurring bacteria in milk, which have evolved alongside us for thousands of  years…His master’s degree in agriculture doesn’t qualify him as a bacteria expert. Nonetheless,  new research suggests his theories may be  dead-on. Scientists are now focusing their attention on the ‘microbiome’–the menagerie of microbes that  reside inside, and on, our bodies. Research has already linked microbiome breakdowns to ailments  as varied as mental illness, obesity and  cancer. At the  moment, the concept of  the microbiome isn’t taught with any depth in  medical schools. In fact, Western medicine considers the relationship between bacteria and humans to be less  a balancing act than a war.” ..”

More on The Complete Patient blog.



Filed under News

6 responses to “Michael Schmidt and raw milk in the October edition of “Readers’ Digest”

  1. I have a problem with the thinking that goes…. “His master’s degree in agriculture doesn’t qualify him as a bacteria expert.”

    I think that facts stand on their own legs.
    Just because someone has a piece of paper from a University does not make anything they say any more true that what anyone else may say.

    What that matters is proof and the facts. What comes out of Universities and posing as science is often just dressed up dogma. Look at the current monopoly medicine paradigm for example.

    In the final equation none of this matters. What matters is that people have an Inalienable Right to choose how they live their lives as long as they do not harm others in the process.

  2. Canadian readers please consider writing a letter of thank you to the editor of the Readers Digest for publishing this story. It is really well written and amazing that they published it.

  3. frustrated farmer

    Have not read the Reader’s Digest article, but how do we go about getting more “mainstream media” covering this topic. I feel that we may be approaching a tipping point.
    People are getting very tired of gov’t intervention in their lives.
    Should a “Facebook blitz” be organized where everybody who has a page posts a link to the bovine to help get the word out?
    Any thoughts?

  4. John

    I’m not sure why, but I was able to read the article without having to pay. I agree that it was well written, and had a reasonable balance.
    With the focus on the bacterial populations in milk, I thought I’d add a few thoughts of my own.
    From what I have read, the sources of bacteria in milk are the milking environment, teat skin and the milking/storage equipment. As a result, the extent and variety of bacteria will vary widely within farms over time, across different farms and across regions. Cheese makers are well aware of this. The problem I see though is as follows. Farms with clean milking areas, excellent milking procedures and excellent equipment sanitation tend to have lower and less diverse bacterial counts (ie few ‘beneficial’ organisms, few potential pathogens). Farms with dirtier conditions, minimal udder/teat preparation and poorer equipment sanitation with have higher and much more diverse bacterial counts (more ‘beneficial’ bacteria, but a much greater risk of potential pathogens).
    Since I wouldn’t want to argue for reduced hygiene when harvesting milk, I think most carefully-produced raw milk will tend to be deficient in enriching the intestinal microbiome of the consumer. Sorry.

  5. Rick Adam

    Or you can buy the print version of Reader’s Digest in most grocery markets or drugstores.

  6. Good News ! This is the free online copy (Canadian Editon ) of the Interview of Michael Schmidt by Reader’s Digest .

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s