(NaturalNews) The next time somebody tries to tell you that drinking raw milk is unsafe because the "statistics" show that it sickens so-many thousands of people every year, ask that person to show you the raw data and explain how it was gathered and compiled to arrive at this conclusion. Chances are that none of it will hold up to scientific scrutiny, as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been exposed for intentionally fudging and literally making up numbers to supports its anti-raw milk agenda.The Complete Patient
's David Gumpert talks all about this in a new report for AlterNet.org
, explaining how the CDC fabricates data on raw milk illnesses to maintain the illusion that raw milk is dangerous to consume. For instance, even though a mere 21 illnesses associated with raw milk were reported in the state of Minnesota during the decade between 2001 and 2010, the CDC somehow came up with a figure of more than 20,000, which the agency is using as "evidence" to support its longstanding position of opposition to raw milk.
According to Gumpert, the CDC routinely applies theoretical "multipliers" to the actual number of reported illnesses that are possibly associated with raw milk consumption. Known as "pathogen-specific underdiagnosis multipliers," these assessment tools are basically a fill-in for the estimated number of illnesses that are not reported to health authorities -- not everyone who gets sick from food reports it to a doctor.
But because they are theoretical in nature, not to mention inherently biased against raw milk, these multipliers end up generating specious data on raw milk illnesses
that have no basis in reality. In this case, 17 actual
illnesses that may
have been associated with raw milk consumption suddenly became 20,000 "confirmed" illnesses, the vast majority of which were supposedly never brought to the attention of health authorities.
"Using unusual epidemiological methodologies, along with curious mathematical modeling and extrapolations, the CDC
study reckoned there were more than 20,000 illnesses from raw milk in Minnesota, rather than the 21 that had been previously reported by public health authorities as attributable to raw milk," writes Gumpert.
CDC using deception, fear to scare people away from real milk
Since its publishing, the CDC Minnesota Raw Milk Study has received intense criticism from raw milk advocates everywhere, who are decrying it as irresponsible and chock-full of misinformation. The Raw Milk Institute
, for instance, issued a rebuttal questioning the methodologies used in the study, as well as the unfounded assumptions made by its authors.
One such assumption -- and a glaringly deceptive one at that -- is the CDC's standard presupposition that raw
milk is inherently dangerous, and its associated illnesses somehow vastly underreported. The CDC has made it official policy to automatically blame raw milk in virtually every instance where a person becomes ill and just so happened to have recently consumed a raw milk
product. In other words, all other potential food culprits are immediately dismissed as potential culprits when raw milk is involved.
"This study is disturbing on a number of levels, but big picture, it seems to set a dangerous precedent," adds Gumpert. "It represents a radical departure from past public health data analysis. Post-Minnesota-data, if you get sick from campylobacter or E.coli O157:H7 or salmonella and you have consumed raw milk
, then any other culprits, like chicken or fast food, can be automatically eliminated and you can be assumed to have been sickened by raw milk.
Be sure to read Gumpert's full report on the CDC's anti-raw milk crusade by visiting:http://www.alternet.org
.Sources for this article include:http://www.alternet.org