The following news item about the dangers of raw milk appeared on @Yahoo News. What are your thoughts?
There was virtually no scientific research conducted in that raw-milk article. The writer simply repeated past erroneous rhetoric produced by the pasteurized dairy industry and microbe-phobic individuals that has lingered since 1920s. There were at least 6 direct misrepresentations of facts in that article. Such non-journalists should have a warning notice at the beginning of any article. It should read: "Writer is a researcher of available info and has been brainwashed to consider any academic view as predominantly true and all others to be suspect." We should be able to sue them for tremendous penalties depending upon the probable damage to the public.
For details on the benefits and total safety of natural raw milk, please read my and Dr. Douglass's Report In Favor of Natural Milk. Both Dr. Douglass and I have consumed raw milk from cows with unclean udders and teats. In the milk were mud, fecal matter and urine from the cows. There were also flies and their fecal matter and urine in the milk. I drank much of that kind of milk up to 2 weeks after milking and did not get indigestion, vomit or diarrhea. Instead, I felt much healthier.
As you will read in the report, most milk prior to modern milking equipment introduced in the 1950s contained very high levels of E.coli and many other bacteria, up to 3 million bacteria per gram. Infants, children and adults thrived on it. If it were unhealthy when full of bacteria, I would be dead. In fact, all of the people who drank raw milk prior to modern milking equipment would be dead. Although such milk does not taste as our taste-buds have been trained to enjoy, I often prefer high bacterial milk. I find that it digests quickly and gives me more mental clarity and focus. Today, it is relatively impossible to acquire such bacteria-rich raw milk unless I milk the goat or cow by hand.