Raw milk, TED, and the resurgence of neo-primitive consciousness

Scientist Rupert Sheldrake was exiled from TED after spouting this heresy:

TED has been told, it would seem. They’ve been told to hew to the materialist dogma, and to eschew what they are calling bad science, or pseudoscience. Because back in the earlier days, it sure looked like they were a little more open minded. This latest edict has put the kibosh on all that. Health Ranger Mike Adams at Natural News is even reporting that the new TED is to be pro-GMO and anti-diet-affects-health. Now that’s going to stretch many people’s credulity. But now that TED’s gone mainstream and attracting a mainstream audience, evidently there are some who feel the message needs to be massaged accordingly.

And just for good measure, here’s another banned TED talk, in which Graham Hancock disputes the dogma that consciousness arises from the brain:

So what’s really going on with raw milk culture and what accounts for the strong opposition it attracts?

Raw milk culture is about making whole what for so long has been apart. In the micro sense, that’s the elements of milk we’re talking about, the enzymes, the cream not being dispersed in tiny droplets and all that. And the split between farmer and consumer too. That’s being healed.  And then in the macro sense the appreciation of raw milk can be seen as symptomatic of a world view in which the dichotomy between man and world is starting to be healed, a view in which deep down, we ARE all one. And not just all people, people and nature too.

That must be where the differing view on germs comes from. Are germs out to get us? Or are we made of germs? Two pretty different views. Is it war between man and germs? Or symbiosis?

I’m sure it’s deeply annoying to those who play the role of furthering materialist science dogma, that in spite of all that effort that was spent stamping out the pagan and the savage, there’s this galling resurgence of these practices that harken back to before science split the world, like it split the atom. All those witches who were burned at the stake, all those heretics who were tortured in the Inquisition, and all those poor aboriginal children who suffered the extinguishing of their culture in the residential schools.

Their spirit is back. It’s like they’ve re-incarnated, and they’re spreading these ideas like a disease. And all those people who worked so hard stamping out this heresy, this witchcraft and this paganism in their past lives, are back again too. But is it for another verse of the same song, or have we all learned something from one another from all those other times? Are we ready now for a still higher synthesis, the unification of oppressed and oppressor?

“When you know unceasingly, that even in a nuclear holocaust both antagonists, the battle itself, and the perception of that whole event, is the oneness of the Ineffable, in a dance with its shadow, you will no longer need to exist at this level…”  — Khyla of Procyon, a “Watcher”*

* from Pg 146, George C. Andrews, “Extraterrestrial Friends and Foes”, Illuminet Press, 1993


Filed under News

4 responses to “Raw milk, TED, and the resurgence of neo-primitive consciousness

  1. My son’s researched rebuttal to the BC Dairy Association’s blog.
    Thank you for all your great posts.
    The BC Dairy Association is simply a mouth piece for the industry
    incumbents. This blog post highlights their pure incompetence, and
    bold face lies. Anyhow, in my spare time I broke down how wrong this
    article is for a slightly more informed perspective.

    Next time you write an article, Nicole, offer a modicum of respect for
    the intelligence of your reader. Apparently you posses a Masters of
    Education, surely you would have learned in your time at University
    how provide references that support your assertions.

    So lets examine the points raised (in reverse order).

    (1) Assertion:

    “Some people believe that raw milk is a healthier choice and more
    digestible because it contains “live” enzymes and probiotics that can
    aid in digestion. This is not true. Enzymes that may be present in raw
    milk are broken down in the acidic environment of the stomach. These
    enzymes are not required for digestion {3} and there is no evidence to
    show a beneficial probiotic profile from raw milk.”

    (1) Response:

    First, there is a reference provided: “Potter ME et al. Unpasteurized
    milk….”. When you look at this article there is NOTHING referencing
    the statement that enzymes are destroyed in the stomach! So when I
    actually look up this statement I see the exact opposite!

    “According to Dr. Beals, enzymes are indeed sensitive to changes in
    pH, that is, to the acidity or alkalinity of the environment. With
    extreme changes, the enzymes might be damaged or destroyed. Any mild
    change in pH either up or down will also affect the activity of an
    enzyme. Different digestive enzymes work better in lower pH while
    others at higher pH. Thus it seems logical that the acidic environment
    of the stomach would diminish or destroy the ability of enzymes to
    function. But this is offset by the fact that fresh whole milk is a
    buffer, that is an agent that keeps the pH steady. (Pasteurizing,
    homogenizing and reducing the fat content of milk all reduce the
    buffering capacity.)

    Buffers “neutralize” the alkaline or acid environment that comes into
    contact with the milk, reducing the influence of the acidic or
    alkaline environment on the milk. After all, breast milk contains many
    of the same enzymes as milk from cows or goats, and these enzymes play
    many beneficial roles in the digestive tract. It would not make
    biological sense to have these enzymes in the milk, only to be
    destroyed by the acid environment of the stomach or the alkaline
    environment of the small intestine.

    Dr. Beals also points out that raw milk does not contain lactase, the
    enzyme that breaks down the disaccharide lactose. However, beneficial
    bacteria enter the milk as it is exiting the teat into the milk
    container. These bacteria may produce free lactases and they may
    convert lactose by their own internal metabolism. The buffering
    capacity of raw milk would allow these healthy bacteria to enter the
    small intestine where they can continue their work of digesting
    lactose. Such bacteria also contribute to the overall health of the
    intestinal tract. Raw milk contains several factors that support the
    proliferation of these bacteria, including bifidus factor and special
    sugars that serve as food for the bacteria. As with enzymes, it does
    not make biological sense for all these factors to be present in raw
    milk only to have them destroyed in the stomach.” [1]

    (2) Assertion:

    Why raw milk is unsafe. Here we have a link to a PDF document. It
    refers to two universities and one government department. Assuming
    the university is less biased, I picked Cornell over Kansas state to
    see it’s sources. This points to a website: “www.milkfacts.info”.
    Why does a university maintain a website apart from the official
    university website? Why is it not a *.edu website? Skimming through
    it I was curious about the section: “Antibiotics in Milk”, that read
    like an industry promotion, a small snippet:

    “Antibiotics are used on many farms to treat mastitis infections. Cows
    under antibiotic treatment for mastitis infections may have antibiotic
    residues in their milk, therefore, milk from treated cows is either
    discarded or collected into a separate tank. Milk containing
    antibiotic residues is not used for human consumption. The legal
    standard, as defined by the FDA, requires that milk contain no
    detectable antibiotics when analyzed using approved test methods
    (Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, 2007).”

    (2) Response:

    Yet I find contrary statements:

    “BGH will also decrease the body fat of cows. Unfortunately, the
    body fat of cows is already contaminated with a wide range of
    carcinogens, pesticides, dioxin, and antibiotic residues. When the
    cows have less body fat, these toxic substances are then transported
    into the cows’ milk. BGH also causes the cows to have an increase in
    breast infections
    Prior to BGH, 38% of milk sampled nationally was already
    contaminated by illegal residues of antibiotics and animal drugs. This
    will only increase with the use of BGH. One can only wonder what the
    long term complications will be for drinking milk that has a 50%
    chance it is contaminated with antibiotics. for which they must
    receive additional antibiotics.” [2]

    (3) Assertion:

    Pasteurization does not alter the nutritional value of milk.

    (3) Response:

    This one was dead simple. I simply looked at the reference title:

    “Effect of several heat treatments and frozen storage on thiamine,
    riboflavin, and ascorbic acid content of milk.”

    Uhh, you’re the one who mentions Vitamin A and D in milk. This
    article talks about three factors and you conflate that into milks
    entire nutritional value?

    “This statement is erroneous, misleading, and factually
    incorrect. Many nutrients and immune-enhancing components are
    destroyed by exposure to high heat and the temperatures used during
    pasteurization. Vitamin A is degraded, proteins and enzymes are
    denatured, and immunoglobulins are destroyed.
    Regarding vitamin A, an important fat-soluble nutrient, a paper on
    this subject published in January, 2000 contains the following
    statement in the abstract. ‘Vitamin A is very sensitive to
    chemical degradation caused by oxygen, light, heat, and other stress
    factors. If light and oxygen are excluded, the dominant degradation
    reaction for vitamin A derivatives is heat-induced formation of
    kitols, that is, dimers or higher oligomers'” [3] [4]

    (4) Assertion:

    Raw milk contains virtually no vitamin D.

    (4) Response:

    The reference sited has nothing to do with the assertion…starting to
    see a pattern here? This statement is so absurd since it’s basically
    the opposite statement that is true, that pasturized milk is in fact
    the type of milk that has virtually no metabolically available vitamin D

    “The bottom line is that pasteurization (a process of heat
    treating milk to kill bacteria developed by Louis Pasteur for
    preserving beer and wine, not milk) not only kills friendly bacteria
    but also destroys the nutrient content of the milk.
    Pasteurized milk has up to a 66 percent loss of vitamins A, D and
    E. Vitamin C loss usually exceeds 50 percent. Heat affects water
    soluble vitamins and can make them 38 percent to 80 percent less
    effective. Vitamins B6 and B12 are completely destroyed during
    pasteurization. Pasteurization also destroys beneficial enzymes,
    antibodies and hormones.
    Pasteurization destroys lipase (an enzyme that breaks down fat),
    which impairs fat metabolism and the ability to properly absorb fat
    soluble vitamins A and D. (The dairy industry is aware of the
    diminished vitamin D content in commercial milk, so they fortify it
    with a form of this vitamin.” [5]


    [1] Ted Beals, MS, MD, is a physician and board certified pathologist, who
    served on the faculty of University of Michigan Medical School. He is
    now retired after 31 years of clinical and administrative service in
    the Veterans Health Administration. A pathologist with personal
    interest in dairy testing and safety of milk, he has been presenting
    testimony on dairy safety in North America for the last several years.

    [2] http://www.mercola.com/article/milk/no-milk.htm

    [3] (Runge FE and Heger R. Use of microcalorimetry in monitoring
    stability studies. J Agric Food Chem. 2000 Jan;48(1):47-55).

    [4] http://www.realmilk.com/health/pasteurization-does-harm-real-milk/



  2. redhorse

    Do “they” believe we only pay attention to the milk that’s in our diet? I try to eat as much food as I can that is the same food my grandparents ate.

    In the process of doing genealogy, I discovered that I have a large number of ancestors who lived into their 90’s, even in the 1600’s and 1700’s. According to the Drs I’ve known, people don’t live that long without medicine, and lots of it. And yet, I have dozens of ancestors who lived very long lives without any help from medicine. That’s why I try to eat the way they did as much as possible.

  3. BC Food Security

    Mike Adams’s twisted article about TEDx last month was one of the worst examples of sloppy inciteful yellow journalism I have seen all year. Not sure what his agenda is but I am sure that the way he manipulates and distorts the facts to make his case (no matter how true or good the basic cause is ) give all food security , food rights , health activists , bloggers and journalists a bad name.
    Also not sure why TEDx is not allowed to define their business parameters and what topics they will focus on and which topics they will ignore ? Because they have choosen to opt out of presenting somebody’s LSD Hallucinations as scientific fact , one can not automatically infer that TEDx must now be in bed with Monsanto or the Anti-Christ.
    Lastly , not sure what all of the above has to do with raw milk ? On the contrary using Mike Adams’s poorly titled article and other New Age woo-woo topics to make a point only weakens the case for raw milk activism.

  4. mgang7777

    Such a Synchronicity. I recently finished Graham Hancock’s excellent 2010 novel “Entangled”. I have been familiar with his work, went to his web pages online and found the information that he was censured (censored?) by TED. As well as Rupert Sheldrake. Brian Greene and other brilliant people who research, write and speak about Consciousness. Collective Evolution, whose featured speaker is Franco DeNicola, has also run an article on TED’s War on Consciousness.
    This is beyond outrageous.
    Yes, Ted has excellent speakers and shows. However I now understand that this is a feel good operation, where they entertain, they delight — they produce spectacles whose purpose is to occupy and distract us and to keep us away from thought, while we think we are being educated. It’s cotton candy for the Intelligentsia who think they are learning and being oh so veddy PC.
    The most frightening threat, from governmental et al controllers is not terrorists and their ilk — but us — and our minds and the power we can have by using our minds if only we could fully grasp this.
    That is why “helping herbs” are so prohibited — because of the insights and connections and the power and the freedom that we can obtain through their — judicious, careful and responsible — use.
    I am extremely disenchanted with TED and thank The Bovine for helping me see this.
    Please see Graham Hancock’s video. Read his books. Thank you again, Bovine.

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