Petition and Report in Favor of Natural Milk

TO: Each Senator and Representative of the United States of America


and REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK (“RFNM”)


EXPERT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By Dr. Aajonus Vonderplanitz, PhD Nutrition

Submitted by:
Arlene Binder, Attorney at Law
Roger Noorthoek, Attorney at Law
16161 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, CA 91436
800-695-3763; Fax: 818-883-3484

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 2 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz

CONTENTS

Page
CONTENTS 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………….. 3

SUMMARY OF PETITION - REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK………. 8

PETITION, and REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK;
EXPERT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1) Health Risks From Drinking Pasteurized Milk ……………………………….. 13
Case on Point …………………………………………………………………………….. 14
a. Bacterial Risks from Drinking Pasteurized Milk…………………………. 15
b. Infant Death Syndrome and Colic from Feeding Pasteurized Milk……. 17
c. Disease and Disease-Risks from Drinking Pasteurized Milk…………... 19

2) Health Benefits and Risks from Drinking Natural Milk………………………… 24
a. Bacterial, Viral & Parasitical Resistant and Nutritive Value of Raw Milk 24
b. Medical Milk Therapy - Prevention and Reversal of Disease from Drinking Raw Milk…………………… 27
i. Infant Safety and Health Benefits From Feeding Raw Milk.. 28
ii. Raw Milk Safety and Health Benefits In General – Including TB.. 30
iii. Immune Natural Milk Therapy Benefits…………………………….. 32

3) Raw Milk As a Preservative……………………………………………………… 33

4) Nutritive Value of Natural Milk vs. Pasteurized Milk (Chart)……………….. 33

5) History of Movement Against Natural Milk; The Creation of the Assumption That Pasteurized Milk Is Safer Than Natural Milk………………………………….. 34
a. National Claims Against Natural Milk………………………………………… 34
b. Chronology of Unsubstantiated Claims Against Raw Natural Produced in California………………….. 37

6) How Credible is the Center for Disease Control (CDC) Regarding Raw Milk 39

7) Bacteriology………………………………………………………………………. 41

8) Conclusions and Recommendations…………………………………………… 43

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 3 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Of

PETITION TO LEGISLATE THAT NATURAL RAW MILK MAY BE TRANSPORTED OVER U.S.A. STATE LINES FOR COMMERCIAL CONSUMPTION BY ANYONE WHO WANTS IT

SUMMARY, PETITION, and REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK (EXPERT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS) & Attached

Exhibits: Exhibit A, SUMMARY, PETITION and REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK (“RFNM”, 34 pages) Dr. Wm. Campbell Douglass, MD, Dr. Aajonus Vonderplanitz, PhD; Exh. B, Dr. Nancy Mann, PhD Biostatistics; Exh. C, Mikel Theobald; Exh. D, Dr. James Privitera, MD; (former Commissioner of Los Angeles County Medical Milk Commission); Exh. E, Dr. Paul Fleiss, MD (President of the American Association of Medical Milk Commission, former chairperson for the LACMMC); Exh. F, Dr. Roger Noorthoek; Exh. G, Dr. Earl Smith; Exh. H, Dr. Thomas Cowan, Exh. I, Sally Fallon; Exh. J & K, Raymond Novell.

FACTS

Federal, state and local health and agricultural departments have tried to outlaw natural milk and natural milk products for nearly a century by pressure from the medical, agribusiness, prepared food industries and private organizatons. Based on the myth that raw milk was dangerous, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned interstate shipments of raw milk. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act regulations FDA regulated that “All products labeled milk moving in interstate commerce be pasteurized.” (38 FR 27924). In 1974, after objections to the regulation from people within the dairy industry, the FDA stayed the pasteurization requirement, permitting shipments of certified raw milk and milk products across state lines. (39 FR 42351). It is the single greatest impediment to natural raw milk sales in the US. Congressional approval has not confirmed that regulation.

In 1986, two organizations with members full of fear, unaware of the true science of raw milk, sought mandatory pasteurization in the case of Public Citizen, et al v. Heckler, 653f. Supp. 1229 (D.D.C. 1986). FDA was not named as defendant (it should have been) but ex-Secretary of HHS Margaret Heckler was named. Very suspicious! Everyone in the court was against natural milk. It was not properly defended, presenting its safety and medical benefits. It was a maneuvered mock court proceeding to damn raw milk and ban it nationally. The federal district judge concluded that FDA presented “overwhelming evidence of the risks associated with the consumption of raw milk, both certified and otherwise”. She ruled that raw dairy was always unsafe and ordered the FDA to enforce its 1974 ban against raw milk. Of course, the FDA did not present the truth of raw milk science, failing most Americans. Consequently, on September 9, 1987, FDA began enforcing the ban on commercial interstate transportation of raw dairy.

Consequently, Alta Dena Dairy of California was forced to stop supplying health-giving natural milk to people in all states. Millions of Americans have been deprived of their nutritious truly natural dairy products. Prior to FDA’s regulations, Alta Dena Dairy supplied milk products from California to Alaska and to the east coast, north and south without one case of illness.

Hundreds of thousands of people from all states who have joined this Petition and Report were and are harmed by those regulations. Congress holds the power to restore millions of Americans’ rights to the pursuit of health and happiness.

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 4 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
Throughout FDA’s websites and its branch departments (CFSAN), it states that bacterial illnesses have been “related”, “linked”, “associated”, “attributed”, “tracked”, “traced” and “connected” to natural milk. Do we understand what those words “related to” “linked to”, “associated with”, “attributed to”, “tracked to” “traced to” and “connected to” mean? They mean that every case reported did not, and does not utilize science to specifically substantiate any claim of an accused product. A connection was based on survey, biased and prejudiced.(RFNM)

Bacterial fingerprinting merely means that a particular strain of bacteria will be compared from one source to another, but not like human-fingerprinting. For instance, there are thousands of Salmonella families. Bacterial fingerprinting can identify a family of Salmonella but cannot identify whether the strain of bacteria was directly related to another. Like the Smith families spread across the U.S.A. can be identified but from whom each Smith procreated is unidentifiable. Bacterial fingerprinting cannot identify whether the strain of bacteria was directly related to another.

The CDC and FDA are repeating the same mistake as the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS) did in 2001 in their Report On Raw Milk, Grading, Testing and Public Health Implications (“DHS Report”) to their legislators. The DHS Report, signed by Dr. Ficcune who headed the department contained prejudicial, unsubstantiated, misleading and inaccurate content designed to intentionally, maliciously, unreasonably, unlawfully in bad faith and illegally obstruct and deny Equal Protection and Right to Choose access (RICO - racketeering) and eliminate raw milk. Legislators in California were savvy enough to read a similar report to this one that Drs. Douglass and Vonderplanitz issued to them. Those legislators established that their health department was not knowledgeable enough about milk issues to have written such a report. Dr. Ficcune was released from his position as the head of the department. Resultantly, on March 21, 2001, the legislators passed a law that allowed safe natural RAW milk to be commercially available with no more regulation than those for Grade A pasteurized dairy.

Andrew Bernstein, cum laude graduate of Johns Hopkins University wrote to those legislators in 2001,1 “There is a certain flaw of logic evident again and again in the outbreak literature, and this is that raw milk causes disease. It seems to be so deeply conditioned into us that many people have difficulty understanding why it's untrue. Take a look at any outbreak article.” Bernstein selects an incident involving school children. “On May 14, 1981, 49 third-graders in Minnesota went to a dairy farm, accompanied by 21 adults.2 42 of these students and 6 of the adults drank raw milk on the farm. Several days later, 22 (52%) of the 42 students and 3 (50%) of the adults got diarrhea. This means that 20 (48%) of the third-graders and 3 (50%) of the adults did not get diarrhea, or, to make things simpler, half of the visitors to the farm got sick, and half remained well. [Four children and 1 adult who did NOT drink raw milk had diarrhea!] “According to logic and reason, if A leads to B in all cases, we can say A caused B. And if A doesn't lead to B in all cases, even if it's only in one case, causality is denied. Therefore, if 100 third-graders drink [cola] and 100 get sick, we can say that [cola] caused the sickness. If 100 third-graders drink [cola] and only 50 get sick, we cannot say [cola] caused the sickness, but instead must ask what it was about the children that made the difference. Similarly, if 42 third-graders drink raw milk, and 20 of them remain healthy, we cannot say that the milk caused the disease, because we have 20 Pokemon-trading exhibits of evidence proving us wrong. Nor can we say that the raw milk was “inherently unsafe.” If raw milk were “inherently unsafe,” all who

1 Bernstein, Andrew, A Very Brief History of Milk as Medicine, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors written testimonial presentation, 2001.
2 Korlath JA, Osterholm MT, Judy LA, Forfang JC, Robinson RA, A point-source outbreak of Campylobacteriosis associated with consumption of raw milk, J Infect Dis 1985;152(3):592-595.

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 5 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
drink it would become ill. It would be an intrinsic and essential characteristic of raw milk, and
could never not be the case. [If we consider the children and adult who got diarrhea but did not drink
raw milk, it is more ridiculous to implicate raw milk.]
“Raw milk is not inherently dangerous, nor can it be. The idea is laughable…If terrorists
armed themselves with milk, we wouldn't need airport security. And one can't say that the
bacteria are dangerous either, because even when the milk contained a billion bacteria and several
grams of raw fecal matter (and it often used to), millions of people drank it and were fine.
“The cause of illness is always to be found in the condition of the person's internal environment.
There's no other logical way to explain disease. And one way to quickly improve the internal
environment is by drinking more raw milk. Hence the great success of the milk diet…It has been
noted many times3,4,5,6 in the outbreak literature that raw milk drinkers are often fine after drinking
contaminated milk.
“…Department[s] of Health pointed out that cases of foodborne illness are generally assumed
underreported. Cases of health are underreported. There is no government branch to call when you
drink raw milk and feel well. One great difficulty with our present public health system is that
it works more like a public disease system. If there were a true Department of Health, and if
every one of us who drank raw milk and felt better for it could call in every time we didn't have
diarrhea, many health officials who want to ban raw milk would have a broader perspective on the
few cases who do get diarrhea. [And it has nothing to do with the milk.] Raw milk has been linked to
sickness by survey-association only; that is not science. Why are [thousands of] cases of people
who drink pasteurized milk and get diarrhea never reported as milk contamination unless so many
people are affected that it can’t be ignored?”
The FDA and CDC used and continue to use unqualified experts to spread the raw-dairy-is-
inherently-unsafe-and-dangerous rhetoric. Many people cannot get raw dairy of their choice
from their state of residence and must rely upon raw dairy from out of state. Prohibiting it is
discriminatory and violates free-trade and civil rights. It is time to correct this unlawful problem
and insure that the people’s right to RAW dairy, the most important food in the world, is
commercially available to them throughout the USA.

Legal Merits

Fraudulent efforts to eliminate raw milk have been ongoing since at least 1938 when the push
for pasteurization was vicious. Then it was pushed to a feverish rate during World War II (see
RFNM, History p. 34-39). Although it has been extensively countered by scientific study
findings, Medical Journal reports, and “at high risk” consumers' clinical experiences (see
RFNM), the FDA/CFSAN and CDC’s “official” bias towards it has illegally remained. On FDA’s
website, it states, “Drinking raw (untreated) milk or eating raw milk products is like playing
Russian roulette with your health, said John Sheehan, ex-director of the Food and Drug
Administration's Division of Dairy and Egg Safety. ‘We see a number of cases of foodborne
illness every year related to the consumption of raw milk.’ " and “Pasteurization, since its
adoption in the early 1900s, has been credited with dramatically reducing illness and death
caused by contaminated milk.’ ”
Our report (RFNM) will present the scientifically and empirically proved healthful attributes and

3 Robinson DA, Jones DM, Milk-borne campylobacter infection, Br Med J, 1981, 282:1374-1376.
4 Jones DM, Robinson DA, Eldridge J, Serological Studies of Campylobacter jejuni infections, J Hyg
Camb,
1981, 87:163-170.
5 Blaser et al, Serologic study of two clusters of infection due to Campylobacter jejuni, J Infect Dis, 1983
May, 147(5):820-823.
6 Korlath JA, Osterholm MT, Judy LA, Forfang JC, Robinson RA, A point-source outbreak of
Campylobacteriosis associated with consumption of raw milk, J Infect Dis 1985;152(3):592-595.

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 6 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
safety of raw milk and raw milk products when produced with a modicum of cleanliness and
even when full of bacteria and fecal matter, as well as the dangers of pasteurized dairy at which
the FDA and CDC should be spending their time fervently regulating.

Under FDA Grade A milk regulations raw cows’, goats’, sheep’s, and horses’ milks and raw milk
cheeses cannot be labeled Grade A, since they are not pasteurized. That is discriminatorily
unreasonable. For FDA to use a judge’s determination about raw milk as confirming their
unscientific prejudice against raw milk is wrongful and cheap-shot. The federal district judge is
not empowered to write laws and cannot find fact of science based on her opinion. She may
interpret law. The federal district judge may have stepped far beyond her jurisdiction.

1) There are many statements herein in which the FDA and CDC purposely twisted information
and made fraudulent claims.
2) It is the policy of this Country to promote, foster and encourage the intelligent production and
orderly marketing of commodities necessary to its residents.
3) Consumers who were medically classified “at high risk” drank raw milk to reverse serious
and critical illnesses successfully. All of those people were either not responsive to medical
treatments, or experienced side effects from regular medical treatments. Many of them had
allergies to pasteurized milk that never made them healthier. Some were sentenced to die
as incurable. To survive and get well, most of them consumed raw dairy products acquired
under herd-shares or leases for dairy animals. That is expensive and prevents many people
from the choice of nutrition-based healing. During that entire time, tests revealed bacterial
and pathogen counts in the milk that were considerably beyond what is unscientifically
“speculated to be safe.” None of the “at high risk” consumers became ill from the raw milk.
Instead, their conditions greatly improved, or they completely recovered. Thousands in this
group are Petitioners on this Raw Milk agenda, available for testimony.(RFNM, throughout.)
4) It is without merit to claim that any “at high risk” group, including children, is at greater risk
by drinking raw milk. There is substantial evidence that proved drinking pasteurized milk is
risky. (RFNM, p. 15-24.)
5) It is without merit to raise the hysteria-invoking concern: “Substantially higher risk of serious
infections, and some of which can be transmitted to others”, when there is no empirical
scientific evidence to substantiate those claims. The idea that food-contamination sickness
is contagious is a ludicrous notion that is NOT supported by any scientifically observable
evidence.
6) It is blatantly fraudulent to claim there are no known health benefits to raw milk consumption
when extensive scientific study findings exist showing the benefits. FDA and CDC have
more resources than most individuals and Universities to gather the information that Drs.
Douglass, Vonderplanitz and others present in this report (RFNM). It is shameful, illegal and
immoral for the FDA and CDC to engender such unmitigated prejudice and bad faith to the
very people they are entrusted to protect. (Summary, and RFNM, throughout.)
7) Statistics show that several racial groups suffer allergies when drinking pasteurized milk and
feel very healthy and without symptoms when they drink raw milk. (RFNM, p.19 c.) Denying
those groups access to a necessity for their health is prejudicial and discriminatory.
8) Pursuant to Federal law, Congress has been granted discretion to determine that raw milk
may be sold in the USA for crossing state lines packaged for human consumption. Congress
would be lawful to propose and adopt an ordinance to allow commercial interstate transport-
ation of natural dairy products as an exercise of its discretion. Pursuant to Federal law, a
public entity is not held liable for injury caused by adoption of an ordinance. This is immunity
granted as an expression of its discretion as long as the federal regulations are not in
themselves perniciously unreasonable and discriminatory. With that protection, if the U.S.
Congress does not write and adopt the requested ordinance, it errs and abuses its discretion
if the decision is based on prejudicial, unsubstantiated, faulty, incomplete reports.

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 7 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
A related case that occurred with the California State Department of Health Services (DHS) and
legislature:
In 1997, the California DHS encouraged “An act to amend Section 113996 of the Health and
Safety Code, relating to retail food facilities, and declaring the “urgency thereof, to take effect
immediately.” Assembly Bill 2612, containing the proposed amendment, was introduced to
require all ready-made meat and eggs to be cooked well-done. The bill was passed and made
law in January 1998. Action against the law was initiated because the law prejudicially
discriminated against and violated freedom of choice, etc., to minorities of racial, ethnic,
cultural, religious, and culinary preferences. Assembly Bill 2612 was reintroduced that
contained a new proposed amendment to allow raw meat and eggs to be served if the patron
was notified by language, signage or menu, or the patron asked for meat or egg to be served
other than cooked well-done, including raw. This allows for ready-made foods to be served
raw, such as steak tartar, carpaccio, sashimi, ceviche, kibbie, and Caesar salad dressing.

Based on extensive evidence contained in the attached RFNM of raw-milk safety, health
benefits, and legal merits, it is completely improbable that significant risk exists, including raw
milk’s long history and traditional use without any scientifically attributable case or epidemic to
date. Claims otherwise without scientific, historical, or legal basis are dangerous, and use
survey and opinion to make and enforce regulations. That tramples the good faith of individuals
who strongly desire and advocate freedom to drink truly natural milk. People need and have a
right to choose raw dairy products despite the fact that contamination may occasionally occur.

We respectfully submit that raw milk products are safe and health-giving based on medical,
health, and scientific study, findings and legal merits. To withhold immediate lawful exchange of
raw dairy across states lines endangers residents of the United States of America. Raw milk
from other states is the only raw milk that some people can acquire.

Respectfully,

William Campbell Douglass, MD
Aajonus Vonderplanitz, PhD, Scientific Nutritionist
Arlene Binder, Attorney at Law
Roger Noorthoek, Attorney at Law
16161 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, CA 91436
800-695-3763; Fax: 883-3484
Petitioners

Encl: Exhibits A, Summary of and Petition - Report In Favor Of Natural Milk; Exh.B,Dr. Mann;
Exh.C, Theobald; Exh.D, Dr. Privitera; Exh.E, Dr. Fleiss; Exh.F, Dr. Noorthoek; Exh.G, Dr.
Smith; Exh.H, Dr. Cowan; Exh.I Sally Fallon; Exh.J, Novell; Exh.K, Novell.

CC:
All USA Senators and Representatives
Director of Food and Drug Administration

Director of Center for Disease Control
Surgeon
General

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 8 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
SUMMARY

PETITION, and REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK (RFNM)
EXPERT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report was written, compiled and condensed by the International Medical Expert on MILK, natural
and pasteurized, Dr. William Campbell Douglass, M.D., author of the definitive analysis of scientific and
clinical study on milk, The Milk Book; and the proponent and leading present-day empirical scientist on
the positive effects of natural milk products on humans, Dr. Aajonus Vonderplanitz, Ph.D. Nutrition,
Nutritional Scientist and author of We Want To Live, Vol.1 Out of the Grips of Disease and Death, and
Vol.2, Healthfully, the Facts, and The Recipe For Living Without Disease.
This Report addresses any Senatorial and Congressional concerns regarding raw milk, encompass-
sing: Health Risks From Drinking Pasteurized Milk; Bacterial Risks from Drinking Pasteurized Milk, Infant
Death Syndrome and Colic from Feeding Pasteurized Milk, Disease and Disease-Risks from Drinking
Pasteurized Milk, Health Benefits and Risks from Drinking Natural Milk, Bacterial, Viral &Parasitical Resis-
tance and Nutritive Value of Natural Milk, Medical Milk Therapy - Prevention and Reversal of Disease
from Drinking Natural Milk, Infant Raw Milk Safety and Health Benefits, Raw Milk Safety and Health
Benefits In General, Immune Raw Milk Therapy Benefits, Raw Milk As a Preservative, Nutritive Value of
Natural Milk vs. Pasteurized Milk, History of Movement Against Natural Milk; The Creation of the Assump-
tion That Pasteurized Milk Is Safer Than Natural Milk, National Unsubstantiated Claims Against Raw Milk,
Chronology of Unsubstantiated Claims Against Raw Milk Produced in California, How Credible is the
Center for Disease Control regarding Raw Milk?, Bacteriology, and Conclusions and Recommendations.

We search for, pay extravagant prices for and jump through citizen’s-rights hoops to obtain natural
milk. It is not fun or exciting. We, and all of the natural-milk drinkers would much rather go to our
local stores, buy and drink pasteurized dairy and live more average lives. However, we cannot.
We have allergies to pasteurized dairy. Either we get sick from pasteurized dairy or our health
does not improve when we consume it. We thrive and are happy when we consume natural dairy
products. For us it is not a choice, it is a necessity for a healthy and happy life. Our Constitutional
and Bill of Rights freedoms are the pursuit of health and happiness, including having our
necessary raw-milk products readily available nationally, commercially. We are not invested in
winning the raw-milk debate and retribution for those who have made our lives difficult by
depriving us of raw dairy products. We simply want the freedom to commercially obtain natural
diary between States for our well-being.

ANALYSIS of the FDA and FDA/CFSAN’s literature on line and letters to the States, many
written by attorney John F. Sheehan regarding raw milk.

FDA’s cited for the years 2002-2003 that “Two children were hospitalized in Ohio for infection with
Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium. These children and 60 other people in Illinois, Indiana,
Ohio, and Tennessee developed bloody diarrhea, cramps, fever, chills, and vomiting from S.
Typhimurium tracked to consuming raw milk. The milk producer voluntarily relinquished its license
for selling raw milk upon recommendation of the Ohio Department of Agriculture.” Sheehan (an
attorney and wayward judge, not a scientist of milk) purposely misleads us with his language.
Those cases were all survey-associated, not scientifically proved and were from many so-called
events. Many people got sick who did not drink raw milk at the same time as those who did. The
farmer told us that the government threatened to take his license for the 90% of his milk-sales that
he sold to a large dairy firm for pasteurization. The farmer did NOT voluntarily relinquish his
license to sell raw milk.

FDA makes reference to the UCLA statistical Assessment of the Excess Risk of Salmonella dublin
Infection Associated with the Use of Raw Milk, Public Health Reports, Vol. 103, No. 5. The
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 9 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
Assessment stated, “37% of reported Salmonella dublin infections were acquired from raw milk.”
The assessment was a statistical guestimation based on many unknown variables. Dr. Nancy
Mann, PhD Biostatistics, UCLA 1965, Exhibit B, refutes the statistics. She indicates that the
conclusion that any milk caused the sporadic 241 cases studied was improbable. She states that
if milk had been the cause, there would have been an epidemic. There was no epidemic; only
sporadic incidences. Other flaws with the Assessment were: 1) it was not known why a case
entered a hospital or saw a doctor; 2) case histories do not disclose cause of death in the 36 who,
later, were reported to have died in that 3-year period; 3) at least 3-4 weeks had elapsed when
case histories were taken. People do not remember what they ate yesterday much less a month
ago. “It is very difficult, if not impossible to identify, in an individual case, which of the possible risk
factors caused the illness,” said Dr. Benson Werner, epidemiologist with the California Department
of Health Services. The UCLA Assessment was based on analysis of questionnaires and
mathematics, not clinical or empirical science.

FDA lists an epidemic of Listeriosis “linked” to soft cheese that contained raw milk. The court
ruled in this case that raw milk was not responsible.

FDA admitted that there was a yearly “2.6% incidence rate for Salmonellae and a 6.5% incidence
rate for Listeria monocytogenes” in pasteurized dairy products. Instead of discussing the lack of
safety of pasteurized dairy, they wrote about raw milk as dangerous. The subject is incidences in
pasteurized dairy. Bacterial contamination of pasteurized milk is a health issue. (RFNM p. 15-24.)

FDA states many confirmed cases of Salmonella typhimurium. Testimony reveals that people
consumed raw milk in the week prior to their illness but milk was not all they ate. Dr. Werner
testified in court about Salmonella typhimurium, the “…most common Salmonella infection in
humans…each year… Salmonella typhimurium is such a large category, it receives probably half
of all cases…could be in any food… it could be related to person…and other sources.” The
Report continues, “Molecular fingerprinting determined that the strain from ill persons was the
same as found in raw milk.” Yet, Dr. Werner’s testimony states that that strain is everywhere. If
someone drinks out of the bottle, as many milk drinkers do, they place it in the milk. There is no
empirical evidence that raw milk has caused S. typhimurium. As Dr. Mann said, if milk had been
causative, there would have been an epidemic. There was no epidemic. All of the other cases
cited by FDA fail on the same grounds.

Plenty of scientists proved that raw milk is the only empirically safe and health-giving milk. So, why
would the FDA ignore that science and fixate on persuading our 50 United States’ health depart-
ments to outlaw raw milk? Why did it hire an attorney/judge, John F. Sheehan, L.D., with a
zealous judicial history to argue its perspective of raw milk? Since natural milk is not dangerous,
why did Sheehan resort to emotionally inflammatory hysteria to persuade people to believe natural
milk is dangerous and FDA publish it instead of science? Why didn’t he tell the truth that all cases
accused natural milk by surveys? What does FDA have to gain? Two rational reasons are
apparent: 1) Employees of FDA/CFSAN ignore science and believe the myth that raw milk is
dangerous because they lack any direct long-term experience with handling and consuming raw
milk products, and that is what they were taught to vehemently believe, and/or 2) There is a
revolving door between large agribusiness companies, food giants, pharmaceutical companies
and the FDA. Most of the last heads of the FDA worked for food, agribusiness or pharmaceutical
companies before and/or after working for the FDA. The USDA has a similar history. Could it be
that they are protecting the greedy interests of the conglomerates who want highly processed
foods as the only foods accepted as clean and healthy? Conglomerates are the only ones
wealthy enough to afford such modern equipment and therefore the only “safe” foods would be
theirs; monopoly. Therefore, they are invested in convincing people that raw dairy and most raw
foods are dangerous. That is a violation of fair trade and monopoly laws.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 10 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
All local, county, state and federal health departments in the USA have been standardized
to use a generic questionnaire often called “Incident Report” to determine the
substance(s), such as food or chemical that caused one or more incidences of illness.
There are two main categories to be answered. One set inquires about the consumption
of foods, particularly citing natural foods such as raw milk, sushi and rare and raw meat.
Another set asks about contact with farm animals. If the person surveyed answers “yes” to
consuming raw milk and raw dairy products, the cause is always attributed, linked, associ-
ated, related, tracked, traced or connected to raw dairy. It does not really matter what else
is learned about the person’s recent escapades. There is no science to substantiate the
accusation; the conclusion is merely survey-association. Health departments should be
instructed that they cannot use surveys to conclude blame and relay it to the media.

FDA raised the concern that natural milk caused “substantially higher risk of serious infections,
and some of which can be transmitted to others.” However, the assumption that raw milk is a
carrier of disease is unsubstantiated by case history and empirical science.
I. Throughout USA, for nearly 40 years, millions of people drank over 3 billion glasses of Alta
Dena Dairy’s raw milk and there was not one epidemic, and not one proved case of food-
borne illness because of it (Exhibit K).
II. Raw milk produced under gross conditions is not proved to be causative in any epidemic.
No one has been maimed by drinking raw milk even with high bacterial counts. (RFNM p.
20-24.) Until 1950, raw milk commonly contained bacterial counts of 3 million ml and 200
ml pathogens, compared to 10,000 ml and 10 ml pathogens now. Furthermore, no
epidemics were proved to be caused by raw milk, indicating that raw milk is not harmful
even when it contains many so-called pathogens (RFNM p. 23, ¶ 4-5). Even when raw milk
was used as a preservative to keep raw meat fresh for 13 years, it did not harm any of the
consumers. (RFNM p. 33).
III. A review of the cases CDC cited shows 156 individual cases attributed to raw milk from
1973 until 1992, but no outbreaks or epidemics attributed to raw milk. If that figure were
valid, and it is not, as explained above, there were only 5.6 cases yearly (156 cases ÷ 19
years = 5.6 cases) attributed to natural milk. That is the lowest case incidence of any
animal product produced. However, there is extensive evidence showing that
pasteurization is a great health risk to the public. Pasteurized diary caused numerous
epidemics, involving 200 people, 468 people, 1,492 people, 16,284 people, 17,000 people,
and 197,000 people. Pasteurized dairy has caused numerous epidemics. In each incident
the product was from a single source producer. In the years 1978-1997, 232,485 people
suffered due to outbreaks from pasteurized milk. (RFNM p. 8-10.) In almost all cases, CDC
reported that investigation showed proper pasteurization. CDC’s figures and FDA/CDC’s
conclusions that “pasteurization provides assurances against infection” are contradictory
and untrustworthy. As facts state, pasteurized milk has caused 2,185 times more food
borne illness than was “attributed” to raw milk. Raw milk has never been proved to cause
outbreak or epidemic where as pasteurized dairy has. Scientifically and statistically, natural
milk is the safest product to consume and does not merit the prejudice that it receives.
IV. The decline in raw milk consumption met with a dramatic increase in Salmonella illness
(CDC illustration, RFNM p. 42). It could be reasonably argued that the deprivation of
natural milk to the public resulted in a gross loss of health.

Strains of bacteria have become immune to antibacterial agents and humans are more toxic and
more susceptible to viral illness. (RFNM p. 40, ¶ 4.) Science has proved that humans become
immune to bacteria to which they are regularly exposed. Legally and morally, it would be correct
to allow people to develop or maintain natural immunity by ingesting bacteria in food-form,
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 11 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
especially those who are considered at “high risk”. People who buy raw milk are informed
educated people.

No empirical scientific proof exists that feeding or contact with raw milk is unsafe or dangerous to
infants and children, nor to “at high risk” groups defined by FDA and CDC. We do not propose that
food-poisoning does not exist. However, we have no evidence that natural milk proved to cause
any illness in any children or other “at high risk” individuals. Evidence exists that infants and
children thrive on raw milk even with high bacterial levels. (RFNM p. 28-30, and Exh. L.) Illnesses
in infants have been treated successfully with raw milk for centuries in hospitals and clinics.(RFNM
p. 28-29.) Raw milk reduced infant deaths in St. Vincent’s Hospital by 94%. (RFNM p.28, ¶ 6.)

FDA and CDC claim they found no scientific study which demonstrates medical or health benefits
of raw milk. RFNM presents a portion of the expert data on the benefits of raw milk from: Harvard,
Princeton, Cambridge, University of Georgia Dairy Science Department, Dartmouth College, Ohio
State University School of Agricultural Chemistry, Washington University School of Medicine, Tufts
University, the Mayo Clinic of Minnesota, The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Weston A.
Price Foundation as well as medical journals and publications such as Certified Milk Magazine,
American Association of Medical Milk Commission, Milk Industry Foundation, The Lancet, JAMA,
World Cancer Research Fund, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, New England Journal of
Medicine, British Medical Journal, Consumer Reports, Consumer’s Union, St. Vincent’s Hospital,
and the prestigious Hartford Hospital. (RFNM p.28-33.)

Dr. J.E. Crewe, M.D., from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, said, “...the treatment of various diseases
over a period of eighteen years with a practically exclusive [raw] milk diet has convinced me
personally that the most important single factor in the cause of disease and in the resistance to
disease is food…
” (RFNM p.32, ¶ 1)

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The barrage of present-day bacterial misinformation taught to the public regarding raw milk is
predominantly unscientific speculation and not based on empirical examination. (RFNM p.39-43.)
Any dissemination of it by departments of USHHS (FDA, CFSAN, CDC) is a violation of the health
protection for all Americans to which those agencies were entrusted.

Regulations/codes for Pasteurized milk are more lenient than those for natural milk yet
pasteurized milk is associated with very high disease rates. The FDA and CDC are on an
unscientifically based campaign to completely eliminate raw dairy. Why?! Ignorance and/or
closed-mindedness? Racketeering (RICO) for the food industry to eliminate competition and save
money and profits? Racketeering (RICO) for the medical professions and pharmaceuticals who
evidently would love to have us sick for their profits?

Raw milk, even if produced with little cleanliness is SAFE. It has built-in natural safeguards (that
are destroyed by pasteurization). (RFNM p. 25-27.) It is clear that bacterial testing requirements
are relatively unnecessary to produce safe raw milk but important for pasteurized milk.

Considering any “hold and test” requirements as a compromise to allowing natural milk to pass
state lines is unnecessary and compromises the fresh taste of raw milk. No “hold and test”
recommendations are in force for pasteurized milk.

Grade A milk standards are more than enough to ensure safe raw milk. All Californians enjoy the
freedom to consume Grade A natural milks from any store. Grade A natural milk should be
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 12 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
permitted to be sold in any part of USA, especially with its high ratio of ethnic groups who are
often allergic to pasteurized milk. (RFNM p.28, ¶ 7-8.) To deny those groups is discriminatory,
prejudicial and a violation of civil rights.

It is also recommended that possible metabolic or other infectious and environmental causes of
vomit and diarrhea must be explored where pathogens are found. The questions must be asked:
Are pathogens the instigators or the consequence of degenerative disease? Are they the cause
or the cure? Is pointing the finger at microbes in raw food a distraction from true causes of
disease? Is pollution of our food, water, air and medicine the predominant cause of disease,
which then fosters bacterial growth? All hypotheses must be open to independent testing and
researchers held accountable to the rules of evidence. Also, raw milk should not be the scapegoat
to usher into this country regulations that require all foods to undergo expensive processing that
only the wealthiest food-processors can afford.

The facts are that raw dairy has proved to help millions of people to better health and saved many
infants lives (see PR ??). The present unlawful practice by the FDA and CDC citing, trying and
fining people for taking raw dairy over state lines is prejudicially discriminatory and violates
freedom of choice and peoples’ right to health and happiness.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 13 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK
EXPERT REPORT AND RECCOMENDATIONS

BY
DR. WILLIAM CAMPBELL DOUGLASS JR., M.D.
Dr. Aajonus Vonderplanitz, Ph.D. Nutrition, Nutritional Scientist

Dr. Douglass’ Credentials:
I am a fourth generation physician whose family has practiced medicine in the Southern
United States since 1850, a graduate of the University of Rochester; the University of Miami
School of Medicine; and the United States Naval School of Aviation and Space Medicine. I
have taken postgraduate courses at Oxford, Princeton, Harvard, and the Universities of
California, Florida, and Pennsylvania. I researched raw milk and pasteurized milk extensively,
and wrote the published book The Milk Book of two editions and several printings.

Dr. Vonderplanitz’ Credentials:
I graduated from Cincinnati Institute of Computer Technology prior to being diagnosed with
cancers and received my PhD in Nutrition from Richmonds University, London. My expertise
with milk began as a child on my grandparents’ dairy farm in Illinois. I was a very sickly child
who was sensitive to most everything and developed Type 1 diabetes while drinking up to ½
gallon of pasteurized 2% milk daily. By age 21, I had been diagnosed with cancers of the
stomach, blood, bone and lymph. After severe medical treatment, I was given 3 months to live
and experienced allergic reactions to most foods. While preparing to die, a hospice volunteer
convinced me to experiment with consuming fresh raw juices and plenty of raw milk products.
Amazingly, I was not allergic to any of them. Gradually my body revitalized itself. The many
times that I tried to revert to consuming pasteurized milk, I unwillingly regressed into
illness.
That initiated my study and experimentation with raw dairy that has lasted 39 years.

PREFACE
The medical establishment is very unstable because disease is rampantly increasing despite
the fact that the medical establishment claims to be removing disease from our lives, and has or
will soon have all of the answers. That story has been disseminated to people for over 100
years. How many of us realize that fabricated correlations, dubious surrogate markers and
sensational estimates are not scientific proof? If microbes were the threat that health officials
claim, why didn’t mankind become extinct when he lived in the filthiest conditions, butchering
dirty kill, wiping his rectum then touching his food and eating it?


1)
HEALTH RISKS FROM DRINKING PASTEURIZED MILK

As we consider reports of infectious diseases attributed to food, we must be very cautious
before we come to any conclusion. Dr. Douglass and I will give you a perspective of
microbiology that is different than what you are told. With diligent observation, we learned in
thousands of our experiments, separately undertaken, nature delivered an entirely different
picture of the causes of infectious diseases. At first you may be stunned to learn that bacterial
food-poisoning is rare. When it occurs, it is caused by cooked and processed food wherein the
bacteria have mutated/deformed. Their wastes are toxic and irritating to the human body. Also,
there is food-poisoning caused by concentrations of chemical food-additives, or toxins or
cleansers on food-processing machines or counters that were not properly rinsed.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 14 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
The body is resplendent with microbes of all varieties labeled “pathogenic” such as
Salmonella species, Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter jejuni, Staphylococcus,
Escherichia coli species, Mycobacterium species and other bacteria common to humans and
other animals are important to well-being. They never act pathogenically. Those microbes act as
janitors, eating damaged or decaying biological substances, such as derived from cooked,
processed or chemically contaminated diets. Pure food is paramount to a healthy, thriving and
radiant body.
Scientists have introduced laboratory versions of natural bacteria in artificial settings and
watched bacteria do its janitorial work and called it pathogenic. Scientists have introduced raw
and mutant bacteria into isolated animal tissue that has caused the destruction of that tissue but
that tissue was not in its natural habitat and did not function naturally. Yet they have pointed to
their experiments and said, See, that bacteria caused disease. That is what they were paid to
do. They did not tell us that that is not as it is in nature. As we mentioned in the Preface, no
natural animal suffers from the exchange and consumption of high concentrations of common
natural bacteria. I, Aajonus, demonstrated that on Ripley’s Believe It Or Not (July 17, 2002).
Also, consider that we should expect many occurrences of diarrhea and vomit in our fast-
food, processed food and polluted evolution. Such ill occurrences are more frequent amongst
people who do not drink raw milk. What would health departments, encouraged by food
conglomerates, gain by accusing food, especially raw food for illness? Would it be to eliminate
competition of smaller companies, and keep the health departments in business?
We must consider anyone who accuses natural bacteria of abhorrent behavior
(pathogenic) as suspect with ulterior motives. Who would gain by the biological food-poisoning
consciousness that exists in our society? Would it be the processed food industry that wants
highly processed foods with long shelf lives? And large profits by food-processors? I will let you
decide as we evaluate the information about safety/benefits and dangers/harm of milks.

Case on Point
Coca Cola was highly influential and involved in the incident where Odwalla Juice company’s
raw apple juice was accused of a 16-months-young girl’s death from kidney disease and failure.
If it had been Odwalla’s juice that “infected” the little girl with E.coli 0157H:7, many more than 49
people would have been affected and not just from a few locations in the country and Canada.
However, relatively few were affected. Another factor to consider is that the antibiotic that was
given to the little girl probably caused her kidney disease and failure. Young animal subjects in
the testing of antibiotics, including Cipro, had the same symptoms of kidney disease as HUS.
Also consider that we have been unable to locate the bacteria E.coli 0157H:7 in nature. I,
Aajonus, secured a sample from a University. I was told it was given to that university by the
FDA/CDC. When I tried to enzymatically fractionate it for study, it reacted as if it were man-
made. I was unable to get it to thrive in organic apple juice. Also, several days prior to the juice-
recall, consider that over 80,000 juices containing the accused apple juice had been consumed
by thousands of people, many children, without incident. If it had been Odwalla’s apple juice,
thousands of people would have been harmed instead of 49. Bacterial fingerprinting only
identifies the exact strain of bacteria and cannot be matched with a source, as human
fingerprints can. Why was Odwalla accused? Isn’t there something beyond fishy here? The
story continues.
Coco Cola, FDA, CDC and many health departments supported and encouraged the bereft
mother of the deceased little girl to speak before the Congress, pleading with them to demand
the pasteurization of all prepared juices. From one incident! Every person in the USA has been
deprived of buying fresh live juices from our stores except at juice bars. Was it a sham by
conglomerate Coca Cola to eliminate the raw juice competition, supported by the FDA? You
decide; the media-damaged Odwalla juice company was bought by Coca Cola for a fraction of
the price it had been worth prior to the E.coli-claimed death.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 15 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
September 2006, 7 children in Riverside County, California experienced vomit and diarrhea.
Simultaneously, the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) and the FDA were on a
campaign to eliminate the large California raw milk producer Organic Pastures Dairy in the wake
of the E.coli/Spinach event. Authorities blamed the children’s illness on the natural milk, closed
the dairy and the FDA tested everything at the dairy. Two of the children were heavily treated at
a hospital with antibiotics and they developed kidney disease. The other 5 children left the
hospitals, refusing treatment and did not develop kidney disease and were fine the next day.
Also, consider that about 3,000 children drank the same milk for a week prior to being recalled.
There were no other incidents throughout California. Antibiotics were likely the cause of kidney
damage in the children.7 What did those 7 children do in Riverside County to get sick?
When all of CDHS and FDA’s tests were completed, they revealed no E.coli 0157H;7 were
found on the dairy’s land or in its herd. FDA workers commented that the dairy was the cleanest
they had ever inspected. However, CDHS and FDA had done their damage to the dairy,
including through the media. What food caused the illnesses? Or was it simply children getting
sick from toxins stored within their bodies and detoxifying, as happens every day.
We must consider that many people regularly develop infections simultaneously with the same
strains of bacteria that are unrelated to any food that they may have eaten for the past weeks.
Most occurrences have no direct link to the immediate food consumed. Why do health depart-
ments go on witch hunts to blame raw milk for incidences of diarrhea that have not affected
hundreds of people when hundreds or thousands of people have consumed the same natural
milk? Maybe it is because they have accepted a job that is impossible to do and they need
scapegoats to justify their employment. Also, we must ask, who profits from bacterial phobia?

a. BACTERIAL RISKS FROM DRINKING PASTEURIZED MILK

From the late 1880’s to approximately late 1930’s, milk caused many illnesses as cities
developed and farms grew farther from cities because milk was sold on the streets preserved
with soap, formaldehyde, other chemicals or enriched with caster oil and lard. The poisons
entered the human body, damaging tissue. Bacteria resulted from necessity, to clean the
damaged tissue. Instead of blaming the chemicals that were used to preserve milk, bacteria
were accused. Ice boxes, and later refrigerators were wealthy families’ luxuries until the late
1940’s. So, 98% of city populations always drank milk that had soured and contained high
bacterial levels. Why did health departments suddenly blame raw milk for the incidences of
diarrhea and vomit?
Maybe it was for the advantage of food producers, like Knudsen dairy. All food producers
want long shelf lives for their food products. In 1934, Alton Eliason began working for Knudsen
dairy. She described Knudsen’s ruthless conspiracy to eliminate its small competitors and
ensure less spoiled milk product in the late 1930’s. Knudsen began pasteurizing its dairy
products and claiming that pasteurized dairy was the only safe dairy. Even though Knudsen’s
employees and representatives knew it was not true, they hired doctors to testify that raw milk
caused diseases. They paid and worked with health officials to outlaw public and farm sales of
raw milk. They paid writers to tell gruesome tales about dirty raw milk if people bought
unpasteurized directly from a farm or on the street. The stories made city people afraid of raw
milk. City dwellers began to believe that anyone who drank it was mentally incompetent.
However, the people who worked with raw milk and drank it regularly were not fooled.8 The
campaign to force pasteurization down people’s throats is still alive today as mentioned above

7 Vonderplanitz, A, Thanks to Raw Milk, They're Happy and Healthy; Los Angeles Times, Dec 24, 2006
Section: West Magazine; Part I.
8 The Crimes Against Raw Milk, Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, quarterly
magazine, Weston A. Price Foundation, Washington, DC, Summer 2000, 59-63.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 16 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
by food conglomerates and health departments.

By 1945, half the population of America drank pasteurized milk. In 1945, there were 1,492
cases of infectious diseases attributed to pasteurized milk.9 There were 450 cases attributed to
raw milk. There was 1 case of disease for every 12,400,000 quarts of pasteurized milk
consumed, and 1 case of disease for every 18,900,000 quarts of raw milk consumed.10 In other
words, a person could drink 6,500,000 more quarts of natural milk than pasteurized without
getting sick. However, if we consider the covert cases against raw milk and our experiments
with people drinking raw milk that was very high in “pathogens”, the number of raw-milk
incidences could very possibly be none. However for arguments sake, we will continue with the
acceptance that people may rarely experience a little vomit and diarrhea after consuming raw
dairy products, caused by them.
In 1945 an epidemic of food-poisoning occurred in Phoenix, Arizona.11 The official report
reads, “Pasteurization charts...show milk was properly pasteurized and leads to the assumption
that toxins were produced in milk while it was stored…” Three hundred (300) persons were
sickened by that pasteurized-milk food-poisoning incident.
Great Bend, Kansas, in 1945, reported 468 cases of gastroenteritis from pasteurized milk.
This was “traced” to “unsanitary conditions in dairies’ unsterilized bottles”. Nine people died.

Consumer Reports, January 1974, revealed that out of 125 tested samples of pasteurized
milk and milk products, 44% proved in violation of state regulations. Consumer Reports
concluded, “The quality of a number of the dairy products in this study was little short of
deplorable.” Consumer Reports stated that “former objections” to pasteurized milk are valid
today:

a) Pasteurization is an excuse for the sale of dirty milk.
b) Pasteurization may be used to mask low quality milk.
c) Pasteurization promotes carelessness and discourages efforts to produce clean milk.

In October 1978, an epidemic of salmonella was attributed to food-poisoning by pasteurized
milk involving 68 people in Arizona. The bacterial level was 23 times the legal limit. The CDC
reported that the milk was properly pasteurized. Yet the FDA and CDC continue to insist that,
“...only with pasteurization is there. . . assurance” against infection.

Consumer's Union reported in June 1982, that coliform bacteria were found in many tested
samples of pasteurized dairy products. Some counts were as high as 2200 organisms per cubic
centimeter.
In June, 1982, 172 people in a three-state area in the Southeast were stricken with an
intestinal infection. Over 100 were hospitalized. The infection, which caused severe diarrhea,
fever, nausea, abdominal pain, and headache, was traced to pasteurized milk.12 Many of those
people did not drink the same brand of milk. It was probably just a localized seasonal flu.
Cases with similar outcomes are: In 1983, in an outbreak of listeriosis in Massachusetts,
pasteurized whole or 2% milk was implicated as the source of infection. Inspection of the milk-
producing plant detected no apparent breach in the pasteurization process.13 In August 1984,
approximately 200 persons became ill with S. typhimurium from pasteurized milk produced in a
plant in Melrose Park, IL. The regulators kept this outbreak secret. Without evidence, they

9 Milk Facts, Milk Industry Foundation, New York City, 1946-47.
10 Letter from Professor Fosgate, Dairy Science Department of the University of Georgia.
11 Darlington, pp. 21 and 19.
12 The Atlanta Journal, Atlanta, Georgia, September 24, 1982.
13 Fleming DW, Cochi SL, MacDonald KL, et al. Pasteurized milk as a vehicle of infection in an outbreak
of listeriosis. N Engl J Med 1985; 312:404-7.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 17 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
concluded that the milk wasn’t properly pasteurized. But, again, in November 1984, another
outbreak of S. typhimurium occurred in persons who consumed pasteurized milk bottled in the
same plant. Again, they kept it secret and assumed the milk was not properly pasteurized.
Then, in March 1985, there were 16,284 confirmed cases of S. typhimurium resulting from
pasteurized milk bottled in the same plant. Tests proved the milk was properly pasteurized.
Investigators with preconceived notions that the milk did not get properly pasteurized, fueled by
the efforts of health departments, drew conclusions without an investigation and accused
natural milk. As always, the media relayed that unscientific theory to the public.14 Listeria
survives the pasteurization process.15

Some Outbreaks Attributed to Bacterial Food-poisoning from PASTEURIZED MILK16
19451,492 cases for the year in the U.S.A.
19451 outbreak, 300 cases in Phoenix, Arizona.
1945Several outbreaks, 468 cases of gastroenteritis, 9 deaths, in Great Bend, Kansas.
19781 outbreak, 68 cases in Arizona.
1982over 17,000 cases of yersinia enterocolitica in Memphis, Tenn.
1982172 cases, with over 100 hospitalized from a three-Southern-state area.
19831 outbreak, 49 cases of listeriosis in Massachusetts.
1984August, 1 outbreak S. typhimurium, approximately 200 cases, at one plant in Melrose
Park, IL.
1984November, 1 outbreak S. typhimurium, at same plant in Melrose Park, IL.
1985March, 1 outbreak, 16,284 confirmed cases, at same plant in Melrose Park, IL.
1985197,000 cases of antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella infections from one dairy in
California.1718
19851,500+ cases, Salmonella culture confirmed, in Northern Illinois.
19932 outbreaks statewide, 28 cases Salmonella infection.
19943 outbreaks, 105 cases, E. Coli & Listeria in California.
19951 outbreak, 3 cases in California.
19962 outbreaks Campylobactor and Salmonella, 48 cases in California.
19972 outbreaks, 28 cases Salmonella in California.

Professor Fosgate, Dairy Science Department of the University of Georgia, said,
“Pasteurization has been preached as a one-hundred percent safeguard for milk. This simply is
not true. If milk gets contaminated today, the chances are that it will be after pasteurization.”

b. INFANT DEATH SYNDROME, COLIC AND OTHER INFANT DISEASES FROM

FEEDING PASTEURIZED MILK

The Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), crib death, has baffled scientists for years.
Apparently healthy babies die in their sleep without crying, without struggle. Infants affected are
from 1-6 months of age, with the highest incidence at about 3-months old. Almost every
conceivable cause, from Vitamin C deficiency to suffocation in bedding has been hypothesized
as cause. Barrett, in 1954, suggested that inhalation of food while sleeping may be the cause.
Barrett and co-workers at the University of Cambridge worked from facts that already

14 Raw Certified Milk and Foodborne Illness, 1998.
15 Calif.Morbidity Weekly Report, March 31, 1989.
16 CDC
17 Ryan CA, Nickels MK, Hargrett-Bean NT, et al. Massive outbreak of antimicrobial-resistant
salmonellosis traced to pasteurized milk. JAMA 1987;258:3269-74.
18 CDC. Outbreaks of Salmonella enteritidis gastroenteritis -- California, 1993. MMWR 1993; 42:793-7.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 18 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
proved that most infants fed on pasteurized cow’s milk had evidence in their blood that they are
potentially allergic to pasteurized milk protein. Infants often regurgitate various amounts of milk
while asleep that could cause anaphylaxis to a tiny amount of milk inhaled into the lungs.
Subjecting guinea pigs sensitized to milk, they dripped pasteurized milk into the throat and down
the windpipe. “Very soon after introducing the [pasteurized] milk into the larynx of an
anesthetized guinea pig, the animal stopped breathing without any sign of struggle.

Colic is a concern with infants who are fed pasteurized milk. One out of five babies
suffers from colic. Pediatricians learned long ago that pasteurized milk was often the irritant.
A more recent study linked pasteurized milk consumption to chronic constipation in
children
.19 These researchers also observed that pasteurized milk consumption resulted
in perianal sores and severe pain on defecation, leading to constipation.

Dr. Ralph R. Steinman of Loma Linda University studied rats.20 The decay process in rats'
teeth is biologically identical to that in human teeth. He divided his rats into several groups.
The control group received a standard nutritious rat chow. Steinman discovered that these rats
would average less than one cavity for their entire lifetime. The second group received a very
heavily refined sugar diet. Although they grew faster than the nutritiously fed rats, they
averaged 5.6 cavities per rat. The third group was fed “homogenized Grade A pasteurized
milk
” and they had almost twice as many cavities as the sugar-fed group - 9.4 cavities per
animal.

Dr. Weston Price, D.D.S., in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration proved fifty years ago
what Steinman repeated in 1963: Processed milk leads to disease and premature death.21

Nizel of Tufts University reported that decayed teeth were four times more common in
Pasteurized milk-fed babies compared to breast-fed babies. Dr. Price, observed that eating
processed food, such as pasteurized milk, parallels poor development of the facial bones.

Dr. A. F. Hess wrote in his abstracts, “…pasteurized milk…we should realize…is an
incomplete food…infants…develop scurvy on this diet. This form of scurvy takes some
months to develop and may be termed sub acute. It must be considered not only the most
common form of this disorder, but the one which passes most often unrecognized…” 22
“Some have questioned whether pasteurized milk is really involved in the production of
scurvy. The fact, however, that when one gives a group of infants this food for a period of
about six months, instances of scurvy occur
, and that a cure is brought about when raw milk
is substituted, taken in conjunction with the fact that if we feed the same number of infants on
raw milk, cases of scurvy will not develop--these results seem sufficient to warrant the deduction
that pasteurized milk is a causative factor. The experience in Berlin, noted by Newmann
(Newmann, H., Deutsch. Klin., 7:341, 1904) In 1901, a large dairy in that city established a
pasteurization plant in which all milk was raised to a temperature of about 60 degrees C. After
an interval of some months infantile scurvy was reported from various sources throughout the
city. Neumann wrote: 23
“Whereas Heubner, Cassel and myself had seen only thirty-two cases of scurvy from 1896 to
1900, the number of cases suddenly rose from the year 1901, so that the same observers--not

19 Iacono G, Cavataio F, Montalto G, et al. Intolerance of cow’s milk and chronic constipation in children.
N Engl J Med 1998;339:110-4.
20 Pottenger, Clinical Physiology, Volume IH, Nr. 3, 1961.
21 Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, La Mesa, California.
22 Infantile Scurvy. III. Its influence on growth (length and weight), Am. J. Dis. Child., August, 1916.
23 Infantile Scurvy, V. A study of its pathogenesis, Am. J Dis. Child., November, 1917.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 19 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
to mention a great many others--treated eighty-three cases in 1901 and 1902.’ An investigation
was made as to the cause, and the pasteurization was discontinued. The result was that the
number of cases decreased just as suddenly as they had increased.” 24
One of the most striking clinical phenomenon of infantile scurvy is the marked suscepti-
bility to infection which it entails--the frequent attacks of ‘grippe,’ the widespread occur-
rence of nasal diphtheria, furunculosis of the skin…pneumonia in advanced cases
.” 25
More recently, Minot and his colleagues concluded that adult scurvy can be precipitated by
infectious processes. That is, a person with latent scurvy from drinking pasteurized milk could
manifest scurvy during an infection. In general, therefore, investigations in the laboratory as well
as clinical observations are in agreement in stressing the interrelationship of scurvy and
bacterial infection. That illustrates “the futility of pasteurization of milk to prevent infection
from diseases...The infant is… subject to the common infectious diseases, and deaths
from these common diseases are not attributed, as they should be, to the defective
nature of the milk.”
26

c. DISEASE AND DISEASE RISKS FROM DRINKING PASTEURIZED MILK

Pasteurization totally destroys the enzyme lipase that helps fat digestion. Pasteurized
milk contains no galactose for milk-sugar digestion, no catalase, diastase, or peroxidase.
Pasteurization alters milk proteins that have caused major health problems that are
allergies in children and adults throughout the United States. Lactose intolerance for
pasteurized dairy is common among many populations, affecting approximately 95% of
Asian Americans, 74% of Native Americans, 70% of African Americans, 53% of Mexican
Americans, and 15% of Caucasians.27 Symptoms, which include gastrointestinal
distress, diarrhea and flatulence, occur because these individuals do not possess the
enzymes that digest the milk sugar lactose and protein in pasteurized milk
.28
Often, with these gastrointestinal symptoms, bacteria such as salmonella will be found active
in the blood and stools but not in the pasteurized dairy, indicating that pasteurized dairy incites
bacterial activity that is, then, associated with a food. Food-contamination is often not the
problem because the bacterial activity originates in the body to help the body dissolve
damaged tissue that results from poor-quality processed, pasteurized diets
.

Milk pasteurization turns lactose into beta-lactose that is far more soluble and
therefore more rapidly absorbed into the blood stream. That sudden rise in blood sugar is
followed by a fall leading to low blood sugar, hypoglycemia, which induces hunger. If more
pasteurized milk is drunk to satisfy the hunger, the cycle is repeated: hyperglycemia,
hypoglycemia, hunger, more milk
, etc. The end result is obesity. Obesity has become one
of the most common diseases of childhood. Pasteurized milk causes more obesity when it
is skimmed.
Pigs have been and are regularly fattened with skimmed milk.
In an effort to alleviate hunger among a Northeast Brazilian tribe, they were given processed
powdered milk. The milk caused rapid growth and irreversible blindness.29

Pasteurization completely destroys phosphatase that is essential for calcium

24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Hess, A. F., “Recent advances in knowledge of scurvy and the antiscorbutic vitamin,” J.A.M.A., April
23, 1932.
27 Bertron P, Barnard ND, Mills M. Racial bias in federal nutrition policy, part I: the public health
implications of variations in lactase persistence. J Natl Med Assoc 1999;91:151-7.
28 Stig Erlander, PhD. a talk on Raw vs. Pasteurized Milk, 2001.
29 Certified Milk Magazine, November/December, 1946.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 20 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
absorption. The “decalcification” of pasteurized and formula milks fed to children can be a
major cause of osteoporosis later in life. We now know that low calcium absorption in
healthy women may cause loss of spinal bone mass as early as age 20. Such women may
lose 50% or more
of their bony mass by the age of 70.30

R.D. Briggs of the Pathology Department of Washington University School of Medicine

read that the British reported a higher incidence of heart attacks among persons with
chronic peptic ulcers.31,32 In 1960, Briggs and his associates undertook a statistical study of
ten medical centers in the United States and five in Great Britain. They compared the incidence
of heart attacks in ulcer patients taking a Sippy (pasteurized, homogenized milk and cream) diet
with those not using milk. Results were startling and unequivocal. In the US, patients taking the
Sippy diet had a three-fold higher incidence of heart attacks. In England the heavy
pasteurized, homogenized milk drinkers had a six-fold increase in heart attacks
as the
non-milk users. We know from the work of Pottenger, Wulzen, McCulley, and Oster that the
specific constituents creating this type of calcification are heated protein and xanthine oxidase.

Pasteurized milk contains cholesterol epoxides and oxides. Raw milk has none of them.
Studies have shown oxidized cholesterol products cause atherosclerosis and cancer.

One reason pasteurized milk doesn't taste as good as raw milk from the farm is due to the
practice of “holding over” milk. The milk is placed in large “milk silos” until it is ready for
processing. It may be stored for 10 days. This favors the growth of certain bacteria.33 Those
bacteria, such as Listeria monocytogenes34 grow at refrigeration temperatures of the silos used
for storage. Pasteurization alters the enzymes produced by those bacteria, causing milk to
sometimes taste bitter, unclean, oily, chalky, metallic or medicinal. Dairy processors add
chemicals to make the nasty-tasting milk taste appealing
.

The pituitary hormone, TSH, stimulates the thyroid gland (in animals as well as humans). If
minute amounts of TSH bovine pituitary hormone are absorbed daily from unbalanced
pasteurized milk, depression of the thyroid gland could eventually result. Low thyroid
function
is extremely common in the USA today. Some our expert colleagues estimate that fifty
percent of the people over 50 years have some degree of low functioning thyroid.

Another pituitary hormone, ADH, absorbed from regular consumption of pasteurized milk,
causes water retention. ACTH, a powerful adrenal stimulator, absorbed regularly from
pasteurized milk contributes to many conditions ranging from diabetes and hypertension
to Addison's Disease (adrenal exhaustion), and acne
.

Several cancers, such as ovarian cancer, have been linked to the consumption of
pasteurized dairy products. According to a study by Daniel Cramer, M.D., and colleagues at
Harvard, pasteurized dairy-product consumption affects women’s ovaries.35 Some women
have particularly low levels of certain enzymes, and regular consumption of processed dairy
products may triple their risk of ovarian cancer compared to other women.

30 Medical Month, January 1964, pp. 43.
31 Morris, British Medical Journal, 2:1485, 1958.
32 Circulation, Vol. XXI, pp. 438, April 1960.
33 Dairy Record, February, 1982.
34 Journal of Bacteriology, June 1995, p. 3205-3212.
35 Cramer DW, Harlow BL, Willet WC. Galactose consumption and metabolism in relation to the risk of
ovarian cancer. Lancet 1989;2:66-71.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 21 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
J.L. Outwater of Princeton University and Drs. A. Nicholson and N. Barnard of The
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine cited more epidemiological studies that
show a positive correlation between pasteurized dairy products and breast cancer and
prostate cancer
, presumably related, at least in part, to increases in a compound called insulin-
like growth factor (IGF-I).36 IGF-I is found in processed cow’s milk and has been shown to occur
in increased levels in the blood by individuals who consume processed dairy products
regularly.37 Another recent study showed that men with the highest levels of IGF-I had more
than four times the risk of prostate cancer compared to those with the lowest levels.38
Synthetic hormones such as recombinant growth hormone (rBGH) are commonly used in
dairy cows to increase the production of milk for pasteurization that often results in inflam-
mation of the mammary glands (mastitis)
. When rBGH is present, it increases levels of
cancer-causing and other dangerous chemicals in milk
. rBGH-derived milk has dramatically
higher levels of IGF-1 (Insulin Growth Factor), a risk factor for breast and colon cancers.
IGF-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization. An article in Cancer Research, June 1995, shows
that high levels of IGF-1 are also linked to hypertension, premature growth stimulation in
infants, gynecomastia in young children, glucose intolerance and juvenile diabetes
.
Dr. Samuel Epstein, M.D. professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the
University of Illinois School of Public Health and chair of Cancer Prevention Coalition,
reports that IGF-1, which causes cells to divide, induces malignant transformation of normal
breast epithelial cells
, and is a growth factor for human breast and colon cancers. In
reviewing the data, Canadian scientists discovered that the suppressed Monsanto-studies
showed that rBGH was linked to prostate and thyroid cancer in laboratory rats. Even after that
was discovered, FDA continued and continues to allow rBGH to be fed to dairy animals.39

Epidemiological studies of various countries show a strong correlation between the use of
pasteurized dairy products and the incidence of insulin-dependent diabetes (Type I or
childhood-onset)
.40 Researchers in 1992 found that a specific protein in pasteurized dairy
sparks an auto-immune reaction, which is believed to be the destructive factor for the insulin-
producing cells of the pancreas.

Wulzen, of Wulzen Calcium Dystrophy Syndrome notoriety, reported that test animals fed
pasteurized milk did not grow well and consistently developed a characteristic syndrome of
arthritis, the first sign of which was wrist stiffness. But the effects of pasteurized skim milk
were far worse
. First they developed the characteristic wrist stiffness and then muscular
dystrophy
. These animals became weak and emaciated and then died. Autopsy revealed
severe hardening of the arteries and calcification of other soft tissues. The animals also
developed testicular atrophy with complete sterility, severe calcification of most large

36 Dairy products and breast cancer: the IGF-1, estrogen, and bGH hypothesis. Medical Hypothesis
1997;48:453-61.

Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and prostate cancer
risk: a prospective study. Science 1998;279:563-5.
World Cancer Research Fund. Food, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective.
American Institute of Cancer Research. Washington, D.C.: 1997.
37 Cadogan J, Eastell R, Jones N, Barker ME. Milk intake and bone mineral acquisition in adolescent
girls: randomized, controlled intervention trial. BMJ 1997;315:1255-69.
38 Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and prostate cancer
risk: a prospective study. Science 1998;279:563-5.
39 New York Times, “Synthetic Hormone in Milk Raises New Concerns,” Jan. 19, 1999.
40 Scott FW. Cow milk and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: is there a relationship? Am J Clin Nutr
1990;51:489-91.
Karjalainen J, Martin JM, Knip M, et al. A bovine albumin peptide as a possible trigger of insulin-
dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1992;327:302-7.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 22 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
blood vessels, anemia, decrease in hearing resulting in complete deafness, high blood
pressure, and development of calcium deposits around the bone openings in the spine
that provide for the exit of nerves
. Sciatica and other nerve compression syndromes result
from calcification.
No one has offered well-documented, experimental proof of any other cause for the
extensive calcific disease we see today. Until science conducts tests on humans drinking raw
versus pasteurized milks, we are wise to assume it is probable that the consumption of
pasteurized milk causes the same disease-conditions in humans. The Wulzen experiments
were repeated and conclusive.

Professor Hugo Kruger of Oregon State University confirmed the Wulzen experiments.
He proved that there is a definite connection between pasteurized milk and stiff joints that
eventually led, in experimental animals, to muscular dystrophy
.

Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., M.D. wrote in his abstract, “Milk, an animal product, is the
essential food of all infant mammals.” Mammals are so classified in the scale of living things
because of the common characteristic of the female nursing her young. The infant mammal is
accordingly carnivorous in his natural habits irrespective of whether the adult of the species is
herbivorous or carnivorous.
“If the adults on a carnivorous diet show conditions of deficiency on cooked meat, is it
not reasonable to suppose that growing infants on entirely cooked carnivorous diets will
do likewise?” Many experimenters, such as Catel, Dutcher, Wilson, and others have
shown deficiencies in animals fed pasteurized milk diets
.

The Harvard Nurses’ Health Study, 1997, which followed more than 75,000 women for 12
years, showed no protective effect from increased processed-milk consumption on fracture
risk.41 In fact, increased intake of calcium from pasteurized dairy products was associated
with a higher fracture risk
. An Australian study showed the same results.42 Additionally, other
studies have found no protective effect from pasteurized dairy calcium on bone.43

Krauss, W. E., Erb, J.H., and Washburn, R.G. wrote in their abstract, “Kramer, Latzke and
Shaw (Kramer, Martha M., Latzke, F., and Shaw, M.M., A Comparison of Raw, Pasteurized,
Evaporated and Dried Milks as Sources of Calcium and Phosphorus for the Human Subject,
Journal of Biological Chemistry, 79:283-295, 1928) obtained less favorable calcium balances
in adults with pasteurized milk than with ‘fresh milk’ and made the further observation that milk
from cows kept in the barn for five months gave less favorable calcium balances than did
‘fresh milk’
.”44

“According to S. Schmidt-Nielsen and Schmidt-Nielson (Kgl. Norske Videnskab. Selsk.
Forhandl., 1:126-128, abstracted in Biological Abstracts, 4:94, 1930), when milk pasteurized at
63 degrees C. (145 degrees F.) was fed to mature rats, early death or diminished vitality

41 Feskanich D, Willet WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women:
a 12-year prospective study. Am J Public Health 1997;87:992-7.
42 Cumming RG, Klineberg RJ. Case-control study of risk factors for hip fractures in the elderly. Am J
Epidemiol 1994;139:493-505.
43 Huang Z, Himes JH, McGovern PG. Nutrition and subsequent hip fracture risk among a national cohort
of white women. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:124-34.
Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Browner WS, et al. Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. N Engl J
Med 1995;332:767-73.
44 Studies on the nutritive value of milk, II. The effect of pasteurization on some of the nutritive properties
of milk, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 518, p. 8, January, 1933.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 23 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
resulted in the offspring.” 45

Mattick and Golding, “Relative Value of Raw and Heated Milk in Nutrition”, in The Lancet
(220:662-667) reported some preliminary experiments which indicated that pasteurization
destroys
some of the dietetic value of milk, including partial destruction of Vit. B1. These
same workers found the raw milk to be considerably superior to sterilized milk in nutritive
value
. 46

Pasteurization was also found to negatively affect the hematogenic and growth-
promoting properties of the special milk (raw milk from specially fed cows, whose milk did not
produce nutritional anemia--whereas commercially pasteurized milk did)...” 47

When pasteurized whole milk was fed to Guinea pigs, deficiency symptoms began to
appear, wrist stiffness was first. When fed skimmed milk, deficiencies intensified
characterized by great emaciation and weakness before death. “At autopsy the muscles
were found to be extremely atrophied
, and closely packed, fine lines of calcification ran
parallel to the fibers
calcification occurred in other parts of the body...The feeding of raw
cream cured the wrist stiffness
.” Guinea pigs fed raw milk +…grew well and showed no
abnormalities at autopsy. 48

Milk Pasteurization destroys about 38% of the B complex (Dutcher and associates…”)49
“Using standard methods for determining vitamins A, B, G and D, it was found that
pasteurization destroyed at least 25% of the vitamin B in the original raw milk.” 50

“On the 7.5 cc. level, two rats on raw milk developed mild polyneuritis toward the end of the
trial; whereas three rats on pasteurized milk developed polyneuritis early, which became
severe as the trial drew to a close. On the 10.0 cc. level, none of the rats on raw milk
developed polyneuritis, but three on pasteurized milk were severely afflicted
.” 51

Dr. R. M. Overstreet wrote, “The vitamin C of cow’s milk is largely destroyed by
pasteurization…”52 proved to destroy 20-50% of Vitamin C.44 Woessner, Warren W., Evehjem,
C.A., and Schuette, Henry A. wrote in their abstract, “Samples of raw, certified Guernsey and
certified vitamin D milks were collected at different dairies throughout the city of Madison. The
Vitamin C content of these milks on the average are only a little below the fresh milks
recorded...indicating that commercial raw and certified raw milks as delivered to the consumer
lose only a small amount of Vitamin C…samples of commercial pasteurized milks were
collected and analyzed. On an average, they contained only about one-half as much Vitamin
C as fresh raw milks
.
“It was found that commercial raw milks contained a [Vitamin C] potency which was only
slightly less than fresh raw milks and that pasteurized milks on the average contained only

45 Ibid., p. 9
46 Ibid., p. 7.
47 Ibid., p. 11.
48 Annual Review of Biochemistry, Vol. 18, p. 435. 1944.
49 Lewis, L.R., The relation of the vitamins to obstetrics, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
29.5:759, May 1935.
50 Ibid, p. 30.
51 Ibid, p. 23.
52 Northwest Medicine, June, 1938, as abstracted by Clinical Medicine and Surgery, “The Increase of
Scurvy,” 42, 12:598, December 1938.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 24 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
one-half the latter potency. Mineral modification and homogenization apparently have a
destructive effect [on Vitamin C].” 53

In Washington, DC in 1911, an 18-months research program was adopted to study the short-
term effects of raw versus pasteurized milk on human growth in hundreds of babies. The milk-
station study revealed that babies who drank pasteurized milk gained a fraction more weight
than those who drank raw. Similar short-term studies were implemented in Lanarkshire and
about 25 American cities. The results were the same. However, Dr. Francis Pottenger, MD
made a 10-years study of 900 cats who were fed raw and pasteurized milks that showed little
differences in the first generation but all succeeding generations of pasteurized-milk fed cats
developed diseases whereas the raw-milk fed had no diseases for the all generations over 10
years.54 In 1936, the Lancet published a study of baby rats. They intended to compare health of
groups of the fourth generation who ate raw, pasteurized or sterilized milks. However, the litters
from rats feed sterilized milk were unable to produce offspring after the first generation. The
females from litters that ate pasteurized milk could not lactate by the third generation so the
fourth generation died of malnutrition and starvation. All of the rats fed raw milk were healthy for
all generations.

More research implicates pasteurized milk as a factor in cancer,55 multiple sclerosis,56 female
sterility,57 and Type 1 diabetes in children.58,59,60,61


2)

HEALTH BENEFITS AND RISKS FROM DRINKING NATURAL MILK

a. BACTERIAL, VIRAL & PARASITICAL RESISTANCE AND NUTRITIVE VALUES
FROM DRINKING RAW MILK

A letter from the Pennsylvania Bureau of Foods and Chemistry left no doubt about their
confidence in raw milk, “I can think of no incident in Pennsylvania in the past twenty years in
which raw milk was determined to have been the cause of human illness.” 62

From 1958-1999, there had not been one outbreak caused by raw milk in California, and

53 The determination of ascorbic acid in commercial milks, Journal of Nutrition, 18,6:619-626, December
1939.
54 Francis M. Pottenger Jr. M.D., Pottenger's Cats (Price Pottenger Nutrition Foundation,1983),p.15.
55 Ursin G, Bjelke E, Heuch I, Vollset SE, Milk consumption and cancer incidence: a Norwegian
prospective study, Br J Cancer 1990;61:454-459.
56 Malosse D, Perron H, Sasco A, Seigneurin JM, Correlation between milk and dairy product
consumption and multiple sclerosis prevalence: a worldwide study, Neuroepidemiology 1992;11:304
312.
57 Cramer DW, Xu H, Sahi T, Adult hypolactasia, milk consumption, and age-specific fertility, Amer
J Epidem 1994 Feb 1, 139(3):282-289.
58 Dahl-Jorgensen et al, Relationship between cow's milk consumption and incidence of IDDM in
childhood, Diabetes Care, 1991;14:1081-1083.
59 Virtanen et al, Cow's milk consumption, HLA-DQB1 Genotype, and Type 1 Diabetes, Diabetes,
2000 June; 49:912-917.
60 Elliott et al, Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus and cow milk: casien variant
consumption, Diabetologia, 1999; 42:292-296.
61 Scott FW, Cow milk and insulin-dependent diabetes; is there a relationship? Am J Clin Nutr
1990;51:489-491.
62 Private communication, August 9, 1979.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 25 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
only speculative sporadic occurrences. In 1958, a Salmonella-outbreak of 11 cases was
blamed on certified raw milk but “no Salmonella was ever found in batches of the milkor in the
herds.”63 Californians enjoyed 50 years of drinking raw milk without a single outbreak.

Raw milk contains enzymes and antibodies that make milk less susceptible to
bacterial contamination
, such as nisin, and lactoperoxidase that inhibits the growth of
Salmonella. Raw milk contains: Phosphatase that is essential for the absorption of calcium;
enzyme lipase aids in the digestion of fats, lactobacillus bacteriocins (nisin and others which kill
listeria), lactoperoxidase, lactoferrin, xanthine oxidase, and lysozyme. Raw milk contains the
proteins lysine and tyrosine that are altered by pasteurization. Also, raw milk contains fat-
soluble vitamins A, D, E and F that pasteurization alters by up to 66%; and water-soluble
vitamins C, H and K that pasteurization alters 38-80%.

In 2004, University California Davis, Agricultural Department experimented with spiking raw
milk with various pathogens to see if raw milk truly exhibited antibacterial activity. The
experiments proved absolutely, conclusively that Organic Pastures Dairy’s raw milk inhibited
pathogenic bacteria from breading in it
.

Dold, H., Wizaman, E., and Kleiner, C. wrote in their abstract, “[Raw] Human or cow milk
added to an equal volume of agar did not support the growth or allowed only slight growth of B.
diphtheriae Staph. aureus, B. coli, B. prodigiosus, B. pyocyaneus, B. anthracis, streptococci,
and unidentified wild yeast.64 The ‘inhibins’ in cow’s milk are inactivated by heating
between 60-70 degrees C. for 30 minutes
. Attempts have not been made to identify the
natural antiseptics.”
Dr. Alan Howard, Cambridge University, England, discovered that whole raw milk actually
protects against abnormally high cholesterol. Feeding two quarts of whole milk a day to
volunteers caused a drop in cholesterol.
Dr. George Mann, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, concurs with Dr. Howard.
He found that four quarts of whole milk per day lowered blood cholesterol level by 25%.
Cambridge's Howard concluded, “…all this business that saturated fats in milk are bad for you
is a lot of nonsense.” Raw milk therapy is preferable to taking clofibrate, a chemical prescribed
by doctors for lowering the cholesterol level of the blood. Clofibrate can cause heart attacks,
gall bladder attacks and cancer.

Example Of Protective Qualities Of Raw Milk, Even When It Is Dirty
In the course of my research, I, Dr. Douglass, visited dozens of dairies. As you know from
cleaning your car, spraying the surface with a hose is ineffective. The surface must be wiped.
The same is true of a cow teat. This was demonstrated to me quite dramatically at a dairy
producing milk destined to be sold raw. The hose was taken and the teats sprayed in the usual
manner. A white towel from the stack was used to wipe one of the four teats. Plenty of mud
and manure could be seen on the towel. If those teats aren't cleaned properly, and they often
were not in those other dairies, that mud and manure went in the milk. They pasteurized it, but
how many people want feces, mud, and urine in their milk even though it is heated by
pasteurization?
Jack Mathis, President of Atlanta's Mathis Dairy, was invited to inspect the dairy at the
Atlanta City Prison Farm and make suggestions for modernization. He said, “It looked more like
an outhouse than a milking parlor.” Manure on the cow's hindquarters was running over the
teats, the milking apparatus, and into the milk. From the milking machine, the milk ran into an

63 Raw Certified Milk and Foodborne Illness, 1998.
64 Z. Hyt. Inf., “Antiseptic in milk,” The Drug and Cosmetic Industry, 43,1:109, July, 1938.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 26 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
open ten-gallon can by hose. “You couldn't see the top of the can for the flies,” Mathis said. “It
was like a bee hive with flies walking in and out of the can.”
Mr. Mathis assumed that the milk was for the prison farm pigs, but it wasn't. It went directly
to a cooler in the prison dining hall, complete with cow and fly manure and fly carcasses. It was
simply strained through the cooler and then drunk by the prisoners. No case of pathogenic
contamination
occurred that was caused by the raw milk in 10 years. If raw milk is such a
danger, why didn’t any one get sick?

Consider that disease-free tribes ate abundantly and primarily unsalted raw meat, unsalted
raw fats, and/or unsalted raw dairy products. They did not wash their hands or food prior to
preparing and eating. Every form of natural bacteria, including salmonella, E.coli, listeria and
campylobacter, were eaten with their food, abundantly and constantly. Why didn’t they get sick,
diseased and die? Why were they vibrant, healthy and disease-free?

In 1976, after exposure to Eskimos’ practices of eating “high” raw meats (aged-decayed and
resplendent with bacteria, including pathogens) to improve their health, I, Dr. Vonderplanitz,
began experimenting with contaminated raw milk. That, too, seemed to improve my health
problems a little quicker. I drank milk contaminated with bovine urine and feces milked around
roaming chickens and pigs for three months. From 1988 to present (2007), I experimented with
thousands of healthy and sick volunteers who drank very “contaminated” raw milk and had no
history of milk allergies. The milk was spiked with bovine and chicken feces and porcine hair. I
allowed the bacteria to grow at 47° F. for 24 days in refrigeration to raise the bacterial levels to
exceed 500,000,000 per ml. Only 10 people of approximately 25 experienced nausea because
of the smell and taste, 2 of approximately 80 experienced one or two vomits, 4 of approximately
200 experienced brief diarrhea, and 10 of approximately 750 experienced several days of
diarrhea. Those are lower than the normal rates for such symptoms in the general public on
everyday processed-food diets. No one got very sick and no one died. All of them said that they
felt healthier and calmer from drinking the “contaminated” raw milk. However, all of them
complained about the disgusting taste and odor.

The British journal The Lancet reported, “Resistance to tuberculosis increased in
children fed raw milk instead of pasteurized, to the point that in five years only one case of
pulmonary TB had developed, whereas in the previous five years, when children were given
pasteurized milk, 14 cases of pulmonary TB developed.” 65

Raw milk also contains an anti-viral agent. In 1997, British studies showed that some
mysterious substance in the aqueous portion of the raw milk, below the cream layer, works to
reduce viral infections
.66 Formula and boiled milk do not contain this virus-interfering
agent
.

Raw milk as a vermifuge: James A. Tobey, Doctor of Public Health, Chief of Health
Services
for the Borden Company, wrote about the successful use of raw milk in the
treatment and prevention of worms in humans
.67 We know that worms flourish on starch but
have a tough time surviving on protein. Hegner proved experimentally that a diet consisting
largely of the raw protein casein, the principle protein of milk, will often lead to a total
elimination of worms. 68

65 The Lancet, p. 1142, May 8, 1937
66 Matthews, et al, The Lancet, December 25,1976, pp. 1387.
67 Ibid., April, 1935.
68 Science, 75:225, February 20, 1932; JAMA, April 9, 1932; JAMA 83:83, 1924.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 27 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
Phosphatase is essential for the absorption of calcium and is plentifully present in raw
milk
but completely destroyed by pasteurization. Phosphatase is an essential agent to the
proper development of a strong skeletal structure.

b.
MEDICAL MILK THERAPY – PREVENTION AND REVERSAL OF DISEASE FROM
DRINKING RAW MILK

One of the most remarkable and important discoveries in medicine, the incredible healing
power of fresh raw milk, goes unnoticed by the medical profession. No one knows who first
used raw milk as a therapeutic agent. The bible extols milk and honey as the food for man.
Cleopatra used raw milk to enrich and whiten her skin. Hippocrates, the father of medicine,
Galen, Pliny, Varro, Marcellus Empiricus, Baccius, and Anthimus prescribed raw milk for
diseases.69
We might feel inclined to dismiss them as thoughtless quacks but those men were
entrusted physicians, caring for the lives of emperors and other royalty. If something worked to
improve health, they embraced it as many people do today in America because medicine does
not work for them. They would often feed a goat, ass, cow or sheep an herb that was known to
effect a certain ailment that a patient suffered. Then they would feed the raw milk of that animal
to their patient and assist the patient’s condition.70
Raw milk was prized as medicine throughout the Middle Ages. During the Renaissance, raw
milk therapy was so effective that papers and books about it were widely in print. In 1595, De
Facili Medicina per Seri et Lactis Usum
, Giovanni Costeo’s book on milk cures was published; in
1681, Tractatus Medicus de Cura Lactis in Anthritide, by Johann Greisel’s book was published;
in 1732, William Stephens wrote a book about Dolaeus’ phenomenal cures with raw milk diet; in
1754, Frederick Hoffman wrote a treatise on the treatment of “gout, scurvy, and nervous disorders”
utilizing raw milk; in 1785, Samuel Ferris delivered a prize-winning oration entitled “A Disserta-
tion on Milk” about curing various disease with raw milk. In the 18th and 19th centuries, raw milk
was recognized around the world for its curative effects
: Philippe Petit-Radel in France,
C. Vivante in Italy, Dr. Philip Karell read his paper “Milk Cure” to the Medical Society of St.
Petersburg
, and Dr. Inozemtseff in Moscow treated thousands of patients with raw milk.71
In England, John Tatum Banks wrote “On the curative virtues of raw milk” for Edinburgh
Medical Journal; Dr. George Balfour lectured on the cure of diabetes at Edinburgh Royal
Infirmary, Professor of Clinical Medicine and Senior Physician to King’s College Hospital
wrote an article for England’s most respected medical journal the Lancet, stating that, “You
have seen some cases of chronic diarrhea and dysentery rapidly and completely cured by this
[raw milk] diet, without the aid of medicines
,”72 giving detailed descriptions of patients who
recovered from Bright’s (glomerulonephritis), other bladder ailments, cystitis, and
typhoid when other remedies failed
. Dr. Donkin wrote for the Lancet about his success with
raw milk to cure Bright’s.
In America in 1884, we had Dr. James Tyson of Philadelphia who reported to and was
published in the Journal of American Medical Association on medical uses of raw milk with
diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, kidney stones, obesity and ulcers
; In 1915, physician
Dr. Charles Porter
’s book “Milk Diet as a Remedy for Chronic Disease” was sold through 12
editions, and stated that the only requirement was that the milk be raw and unaltered in any way
since leaving the cow; in 1923, Bernarr Macfadden’s, The Miracle of Milk: How to Use the
Milk Diet Scientifically at Home
remained in print for 20 years; Dr. John Harvey Kellogg suc-

69 Anthimus, On the Observance of Foods, tr and ed. Mark Grant (Totnes: Prospect, 1996), 117.
70 John Harvey Kellogg, Autointoxication; or, Intestinal toxemia, 3''d ed. (Battle Creek: Modern Medicine
Publishing Co., 1922) p.125.
71 Mentioned in Tyson, Milk Treatment of Disease, JAMA 1884 Jun: 626.
72 Johnson G, Clinical Lecture on the Curative Influence of an Exclusive Milk Diet in Some Cases of
Inflammation of the Bladder, Lancet Dec 16 1876;2:847-848.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 28 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
cessfully treated John D. Rockefeller for his chronic digestive problems exclusively with
a raw-milk diet
.73 Kellogg stated that only raw milk should be taken for therapy. Almost
every type of disease recognized or not was cured by consuming massive amounts of raw milk.

William Osler, the most respected physician of the early 20th Century, said, “A rigid [raw]
milk diet may be tried ... this plan in conjunction with rest is most efficacious.” And then he
quoted Cheynes, “Milk and sweet sound blood differ in nothing but color: Milk is blood.”

Dr. J.E. Crewe, from the Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota, presented his findings
on the therapeutic uses of raw milk before the Minnesota State Medical Society in 1923.
Although Dr. Crewe's experiments were on the feeding of raw milk for disease, the key, he
injects, is not milk but raw milk. Dr. Crewe reported, “While milk is widely used and
recommended as an article of diet, it is seldom used by regular physicians exclusively as an
agent in the treatment of disease. For fifteen years I have employed the so-called [raw]
milk treatment in various diseases ... the results obtained in various types of illnesses
have been so uniformly excellent
that one's conception of disease and its alleviation is
necessarily modified.” 74
His report was met with apathy and indifference, saying, “The method itself is so simple that
it does not greatly interest medical men.75 The fact that many diseases are treated and
successful results [ignored], leads almost to disrespect.”

i.
INFANT SAFETY AND HEALTH BENEFITS FROM FEEDING NATURAL MILK

Physicians in charge of five of the largest city hospitals “frankly admitted” that greater health
occurred in babies who drank pure raw milk over pasteurized milk, that it would be “vastly
better” to have raw milk than milk which had been cleansed and disinfected (pasteurized).76

Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland found that raw cow's milk
contains 2½ times more of the enzyme-like factor lgG, that inhibits rotavirus that causes
diarrhea in infants
, than in pasteurized milk.

Dr. George Goler of the Rochester Department of Health switched from pasteurized
milk to raw milk for the city. Other public health officials were stunned and predicted calamity
for the infant mortality rate. However, the infant death-rate dropped considerably for the
next 3 years
although the population of Rochester increased considerably. For the next 3
years
, the infant mortality rate dropped even lower.77

The sister in charge of St. Vincent's hospital was very concerned about the high death
rate among infants from gastroenteritis. She asked Dr. Paul B. Cassidy, M.D. for his
advice, and he recommended a switch from pasteurized to raw milk. The raw critics predicted
that there would be a catastrophic increase in infant deaths from feeding infants raw milk. The
death rate in infants from gastroenteritis quickly fell by 94%, from a high of 89 in 1922 to
less than 5 per year78 until the use of raw milk was stopped. Raw milk was extremely popular
among leaders in medicine before World War II. The prestigious Hartford Hospital used only

73 Kellogg, p. viii.
74 Certified Milk Magazine, January 1929.
75 Ibid.
76 John Spargo, The Common Sense of the Milk Question (New York: MacMillan, 1908) p. 85-6.
77 Spargo, 216.
78 Annual Convention, Certified Milk Producers Association, Hotel Roosevelt, New York City, February 8,
1938.
EXHIBIT A

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 29 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
certified milk, most of it raw, “in the artificial feeding of infants, for expectant and nursing
mothers, and for all other cases.

It has been known since the earliest days of husbandry that the newborn calf thrives on raw
milk. Calves fed pasteurized milk since birth die between 3-9 months old.

John Fowler, M.D., Worcester, Massachusetts stated that, used faithfully, raw-milk therapy
was “very effective, and in no instance…were the muscle cramps in pregnant women a
cause of discomfort.”

The Effect of Milk on Growth

An experiment done with rats in 1927 vividly illustrated the remarkable growing power of even a
small amount of raw milk. The rats were given a very good diet except the milk portion was very
careful y controlled. They could eat all they wanted except for the raw milk. The above illustration
is from a March, 1928 publication illustrating the findings of the experiment

Child Allergy Case study
Destin Callahan was one of Dr. Douglass’ patients who started badly in life. Destin was not
breast fed. Asthma developed by six months of age. His mother couldn't recall any time
during his nine years that he hadn't wheezed. He was in and out of hospitals with asthma
attacks, sometimes nearly fatal, at least six times yearly. He took antibiotics and cortisone
almost continuously after the age of six months. Although Destin was nine years old, he was
physically the size of a six year old. He was intelligent, but thin and delicate. Destin's mother
and father sought Dr. Douglass’ help at the Douglass Center in Atlanta. They were desperate to
try something different and non-toxic. They felt Destin's poor growth was at least partially due to
constant medication. He had seen many allergists and undergone frequent skin tests. His
parents were told that their son was allergic to milk. We informed them that 99% of affected
individuals are allergic only to pasteurized milk. We custom ordered the manufacture of a
serum which contained the various factors to which Destin was allergic by skin test. This serum
was then injected into a pregnant cow. After the calf was born, the raw colostrum was taken
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 30 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
from the mother and given daily to Destin. After six weeks of this raw milk treatment, Destin
began to improve. For the first time in his life he stopped wheezing. His parents were
astounded and hesitant to believe the difference they witnessed. On Christmas Eve, Destin
became overly excited and suffered a severe asthmatic attack. Marcy and Les Callahan had
the courage to eschew customary medications and gave Destin raw milk colostrum every hour.
By Christmas morning, Destin was completely free of symptoms. Destin grew rapidly after the
raw milk and colostrum treatment began
.

Raw milk contains bioactive vitamins. Through the process of chromatography, we now
recognize that synthetic vitamins are not the same as natural vitamins, yet marketers of
pasteurized milk continue to advertise the supplemental vitamin content of their pasteurized milk
as an equivalent replacement of the nutrient value of natural milk. Natural Vitamin C, for
instance, is 33% higher in fresh natural milk than in pasteurized milk. Some professionals
conclude that both milks are inadequate in Vitamin C, and neither raw nor pasteurized milks
should be relied upon as a Vitamin C source. However the fact that many babies fed
pasteurized milk develop a scurvy-like syndrome which raw milk-fed babies do not suffer
proved those professionals’ conclusion wrong
. The research of Friederger also testified
that pasteurized milk with vitamins added produced the same deficiencies as those
caused by plane pasteurized milk
.79
Francis Pottenger, M.D. proved there is disease similar to Vitamin C deficiency (scurvy) that
can be cured without Vitamin C. He proved that raw milk contains an endocrine nutrient that
reverses scurvy. Pasteurized milk does not have it. He proved that raw milk reversed and
prevented scurvy
.
Stefansson, an Anthropologist working for the U.S. government, demonstrated that a
supposedly adequate intake of Vitamin C in the form of tomato juice did not prevent scurvy in an
arctic sea captain. When the captain ate raw meat for a few days he was completely cured.80
It was observed in 1942 that grazed cows “…produce as much Vitamin C as does the
entire citrus crop, but most of it is lost as the result of pasteurization.”81

French physiologist, Rene Dubos said, “From the point of view of scientific philosophy, the
largest achievement of modern biochemistry has been the demonstration of the fundamental
unity of the chemical processes associated with life.” In other words, if it happens in guinea pigs,
rats and cats, it probably happens in humans.
A Dutch chemist, Willem J. Van Wagtendork at Oregon State College, confirmed the
Wulzen findings that pasteurized dairy creates calcification and stiffness. He found that
guinea pigs with calcification of the tissues could be relieved with raw cream but not so with
pasteurized cream. The active factor is transmuted and rendered ineffective by
pasteurization
.

ii. RAW MILK SAFETY AND HEALTH BENEFITS IN GENERAL—INCLUDING TB

The Bahimas, Nuers of the Upper Nile, the Todas, Kazaks, and Hottentots of Africa each
drink six pints of natural milk daily and they all live healthfully.

Dr. Crewe’s use of raw milk therapy in advanced cases of pulmonary tuberculosis

79 Certified Milk Magazine, October 1927 as reported by Victor E. Levine, Prof. of Biological Chemistry &
Nutrition, Creighton University School of Medicine.
80 Harper's Magazine, November/December, 1925 & January 1936, from the Stefansson Collection,
Dartmouth College.
81 Proc. Nat. Nut. Conf. for Defense, May 14, Federal Sea Agency, pp. 176; U.S. Government Pat. Off.,
1942.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 31 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
often resulted in rapid improvement for the patient. This was ironic since raw milk was
blamed, incorrectly, for a great deal of the tuberculosis seen in that decade. (Hippocrates told
doctors hundreds of years ago that raw milk greatly alleviates tuberculosis.)
Crewe reported on his raw-milk treatment of edema (swelling), “In cases in which there is
marked edema, the results obtained are also surprisingly marked. This is especially striking
because so-called dropsy has never been treated with large quantities of fluid. With all
medication withdrawn, one case lost twenty-six pounds in six days, huge edema
disappearing from the abdomen and legs with great relief to the patient
.”
Cardiac and kidney cases showed remarkable improvement. One patient with
advanced heart and kidney disease lost thirty pounds of fluid in six days on raw milk.
Dr. Crewe, treating high blood pressure with raw milk, reported that he had “never seen
such rapid and lasting results by any other method.”
Patients with heart failure were taken off medications, including digitalis (Lanoxin),
and “responded splendidly.”
Perhaps the most startling raw-milk treatment that goes counter to present-day thinking was
for obesity. Dr. Crewe: “One patient reduced from 325 pounds to 284 pounds in two weeks
on four quarts of milk a day, while her blood pressure was reduced from 220 to 170.”
Crewe implied that the same results might be obtained by eating fresh raw meat. He relates
the story of the explorer Stefansson, who traveled the frozen Arctic with his colleagues living on
fish, seal, polar bear, and caribou, nothing else for nine months. Most of that was eaten raw
and decayed (full of pathogens). Although Eskimos endured the severest of hardships, they
were never sick. On the return journey, they discovered a cache of civilized food, including flour,
preserved fruits and vegetables, and salted, cooked meat. Against Stefansson's advice, the
men ate that food for several days. They developed diarrhea, loose teeth, and sore mouths.
Stefansson immediately placed them on raw caribou tongue, and in a few days they recovered.
Raw milk is by far the most convenient and acceptable form of raw animal protein
supplying the enzymes, antibodies, and nutrients needed for recovery from disease.
Dr. Crewe reported on his work again in 1930. He quoted a colleague, who also treated with
raw milk, “This was the worst case of psoriasis I have ever seen. This boy was literally covered
from head to foot with scales. We put the boy on a [natural] milk diet and in less than a month
he had skin like a baby's
.”
Crewe postulated, because of the remarkable effects seen in such a great variety of
diseases, that natural milk may supply some hormonal elements to the patient. He repeatedly
saw marked improvement in patients with toxic thyroid disease, a hormonal malady.
Rapid and marked improvement in the infection and in the reduction of the size of the
prostate gland was seen routinely. With shrinkage of the gland, the blockage clears and
surgery is avoided
, Crewe reported. Urinary tract infections, even with prostate swelling
are greatly improved
.
Natural milk treatment for diabetes caused most patients' sugar levels to normalize in 4-10
weeks without any diabetic symptoms. This was astounding because the milk sugar in five
quarts of milk, the amount he used daily for diabetes, was 1/2 pound.
And finally Crewe commented on the large group of patients for which no specific disease
could be found, “These patients are often underweight. They may consume a fairly large
amount of food, but they do not gain in weight or strength. They are often nervous and
frequently classed as neurasthenics. Usually, the skin condition is poor, they are sallow, and
disappointed because no one can tell them what the trouble is. They do not respond well to
medical treatment...Every physician knows this class of patient because they are unhappy and
unsatisfactory to treat.” He reported that they “respond admirablyto raw-milk therapy, but
he added, “The chief fault of the treatment is that it is too simple . . . it does not appeal to the
modern medical men.”
Dr. Crewe: “...the treatment of various diseases over a period of eighteen years with a
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 32 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
practically exclusive [natural] milk diet has convinced me personally that the most
important single factor in the
cause of disease and in the resistance to disease is food…

Dr. L. J. Harris wrote, “Dr. Evelyn Sprawson of the London Hospital has recently stated that
in certain institutions children brought up on raw milk (as opposed to pasteurized milk) had
perfect teeth and no decay
.”82

The Lancet published that in children, teeth are less likely to decay on a diet
supplemented with raw milk than with pasteurized milk.83

“The dividing line between a food and a medicine sometimes becomes almost invisible. In
many diseases nothing heals the body and restores strength like [raw] milk…” Dr. J.F.
Lyman, Prof. of Agricultural Chemistry, Ohio State University.

Milk has been used for gastric disorders, especially ulcers, for centuries. In the 19th century,
Cruvelheir advocated raw milk as the most important factor for treatment of gastric ulcer.84
Benjamin M. Bernstein, M.D., a gastroenterologist, described a very difficult gastrointes-
tinal disease, “...very sick with active diarrhea, abdominal pain, loss of blood and consequent
anemia, frequently with fever, markedly dehydrated and in severe cases, near death.”85
Referring to his successes with natural milk, he said, “…milk not only may, but should be
used in the management of any type or variety of gastrointestinal disorder.”86
Samuel Zuerling, M.D., ear, nose, and throat specialist, Assistant Surgeon, Brooklyn
Eye and Ear Hospital, reported an unusual case treated with raw milk.87 “Not long ago a
gentleman came to me for relief of a severe burning sensation in the nose…he was panicky.
He had sought relief and obtained no results...the patient readily acceded to a milk...diet and in
a few days had complete relief.”

Pelvic Inflammatory Disease in women is an abscess involving the fallopian tube and
ovary. Barbara Seaman reported a case that conventional antibiotic therapy had not helped.
The woman went to an Indian country doctor who treated her with raw milk straight from his
cow
. In six weeks she was free of disease.88

Fermented raw milk has been shown to retard tumor growth and decrease the activity of
alkylating agents associated with stomach cancer.89

iii. IMMUNE NATURAL MILK THERAPY BENEFITS

Eighty years of research with successful Immune Raw Milk Therapy, from Ehrlich to
Peterson, has been ignored by members of the American Medical Association.
The Lancet reported on immune milk therapy by showing conclusively through a scholarly
review of the literature and research that:
1) Antibodies against disease are absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract into blood.
2) Rheumatoid arthritis and hay fever respond to immune raw milk therapy.

82 Vitamins in Theory and Practice, p. 224, Cambridge, University Press, 1935.
83 EFFECTS OF PASTEURIZATION OF MILK ON TOOTH HEALTH, The Lancet, p. 1142, May 8, 1937
84 B.M. Bernstein, Paper presented to the AAMMC Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, June 8, 1942.
85 Loc. cit.
86 Loc. cit.
87 Certified Milk Magazine, September 1936.
88 Seaman, B., Women and the Crisis in Sex Hormones, Bantam Books, 1979, pp. 203.
89 Raw Certified Milk and Foodborne Illness, 1997.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 33 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
3) The udder acts as an antibody-forming organ independent of the cow's blood-immune
system. The appropriate bacteria, fungus, or virus need only be infused directly into the
teat canal for antibody production in the colostrum milk.
Doctors Peterson and Campbell of the University of Minnesota began rekindling the fires
of controversy in 1955. Peterson had had success treating rheumatoid arthritis patients with
immune raw milk from cows immunized with streptococcus antigen.90 Now, Peterson stimulated
the cow's udder with pollen antigen such as rag weed. The resulting immune raw milk was fed
to asthma and hay fever sufferers
. In a controlled experiment, thirty-six patients improved
to a significant degree
. The symptoms disappeared in a definite order: First, the asthma, then
nasal congestion, and lastly, itching of the eyes. There was great blind resistance to this arthritis
therapy. Emotions ran so high in Virginia that this perfectly harmless food was impounded by
the state from two dairies.91 They claimed it was a “biological product” (no kidding) and needed
a Federal license. The FDA declared that immune raw milk was a drug and confiscated 80
cases [of that raw milk].”

Dr. Donald H. Hastings, a Bismarck, North Dakota veterinarian, from University of
Minnesota, aware of Peterson and Campbell’s work, produced immune raw milk from measles-
inoculated cows and fed the raw milk to multiple sclerosis sufferers. Hastings reported that
forty percent of the multiple sclerosis patients got relief including alleviation of numbness,
decrease in muscle twitching, and less fatigue.92

3)
NATURAL MILK AS A PRESERVATIVE

A remarkable quality of natural milk that housewives of pioneer days used was its ability to
preserve meat. Housewives immersed chops, steaks and roasts in large crocks of raw
buttermilk that assured fresh meat for the family year round.93 The Arabs have preserved meat
with raw camel milk for thousands of years. The Icelanders of 200 years ago preserved their
sheep's heads in sour raw milk.
In 1908, an American doctor decided to try it himself. He immersed a beefsteak in raw
buttermilk. Thirteen years later it remained in a state of perfect preservation, “showing not the
slightest taint or decay.” The doctor emphasized, “It should be mentioned right here, however,
that these remarks are true only of clean cow's milk as it flows from the original fount, and do
not hold for milk which has been boiled or pasteurized…processes which…deprive the milk of
its most unique and valuable properties.”94

4) NUTRITIVE VALUE OF NATURAL MILK Vs. PASTEURIZED MILK (Chart)

COMPARISON CHART BETWEEN RAW AND PASTEURIZED MILKS
Category Compared
Raw Milk
Pasteurized Milk
1) Enzymes:
All available.
Less than 10% remaining.
2) Protein:
100% available, all 22 amino acids,
Protein-lysine and tyrosine are
including 8 that are essential.
altered by heat with serious loss of
metabolic availability, making the
whole protein complex less available
for tissue repair and rebuilding.

90 The Milk Dealer, June 1960.
91 Ibid.
92 DVM, February 1981.
93 American Association of Medical Milk Commissions, Proceedings 15th Annual Conference, 1921.
94 Ibid.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 34 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
3) Fats: (studies indicate that fats All 18 fatty acids metabolically
Altered by heat, especially the 10
are necessary to metabolize
available, both saturated and
essential unsaturated fats.
protein and calcium. All raw
unsaturated fats.
protein-bearing foods contain
fats.)
4) Vitamins:
All 100% available.
Among the fat-soluble vitamins,
some are classed as unstable and
therefore a loss is caused by heating
above blood temperature. This loss
of Vitamin A, D, E and F can run as
high as 66%. Vitamin C loss usually
exceeds 50%. Losses of water-
soluble vitamins are affected by heat
and can run from 38% to 80%.
5) Carbohydrates:
Easily utilized in metabolism. Still
Tests indicate that heat has made
associated naturally with elements.
some changes making elements less
available metabolically.
6) Minerals:
All 100% metabolically available.
Calcium is altered by heat and loss in
Major mineral components are
metabolism may run 50% or more,
calcium, chlorine, magnesium,
depending on pasteurization
phosphorus, potassium, sodium and
temperature. Losses in other essential
sulphur. Vital trace minerals, all 24
minerals, because one mineral
or more, 100% available.
usually acts synergistically with
another element. There is a loss of
enzymes that serve as leaders in
assimilation minerals.
NOTE:
Bacterial growth in Raw Milk
Pasteurization refers to the process of

increases very slowly, because of the
heating every particle of milk to at

friendly acid-forming bacteria
least 145° F. and holding at such

(nature's antiseptic) retards the
temperature for at least 15 seconds.

growth of invading organisms
Pasteurizing does not remove dirt, or
(bacteria).
bacterially-produced toxins from

milk. Bacterial growth will be
Usually keeps for several weeks
geometrically rapid after
when under refrigeration and will
pasteurization and homogenization.
sour instead of rot.
Gradually turns rancid in a few days,

and then decomposes.

5)
HISTORY OF MOVEMENT AGAINST NATURAL MILK - The Creation of the
Assumption That Pasteurized Milk Is Safer Than Natural Milk

Dr. Fosgate lamented, “The dairy cow has been sadly maligned by the dairy and food
industry in general. She has been pictured as a veritable 'Typhoid Mary' for all of the ills of man,
including the common cold, when actually, the reverse is true.”

a.
NATIONAL CLAIMS AGAINST NATURAL MILK

In order to understand how pasteurized milk became prominent and over-powered raw milk in
the market, we must look to three historical factors: I) political and industrial forces, II) cata-
strophic circumstance, and III) propaganda.
Here are 6 major events within those categories.

1) Milton J. Rosenau, M.D., a prominent physician in the early 1900’s, campaigned to
reduce milk borne diseases. He stated in his textbook, “Next to water purification,
pasteurization is the most important single preventive measure in the field of sanitation.”
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 35 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
In 1913, Rosenau became a Harvard University Medical School professor and a co-
founder of the Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology School for Health
Officers. When Harvard established a school of public health in 1922, Rosenau directed
its epidemiology program until 1935. He did not conduct any empirical tests to prove that
any animal was healthier by drinking natural or pasteurized milk, he simply was
convinced of his speculation that pasteurized milk was healthier and safer. In 1936, he
moved to the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, to help establish its public health
school (1940), where he served as dean until his death in 1946. He continually
campaigned with an intense fervor against raw milk even in the face of Dr. Pottenger’s
tests that proved Rosenau wrong. By 1936, he had, without scientific proof, elevated
pasteurized milk to the standard in most large cities, although a little more than half of all
milk in the United States was still consumed raw.95
2) The Medical Milk Commissions, responsible for certifying the purity and
cleanliness of raw milk, had taken a strong stance against pasteurization since
their inception at the
turn of the 20th century. In their official journal, the Certified
Milk Magazine
they defended clean unpasteurized milk, properly inspected, as the milk
of choice because of its superior nutrition, better digestibility, and freedom from disease-
causing properties caused by pasteurized and boiled milks.
3) In September 1929, the first pasteurized certified milk was sold. There was vigorous
objection to this from members of the milk commission and producers of natural
milk
but consumers were led to believe that pasteurization was an added benefit to
certification of the raw product. However many argued that there was no need for
pasteurization with certified raw milk’s cleanliness and purity.
4) A fatal blow was dealt to the raw milk producers by Charles Speakes, Secretary
Treasurer of the American Association of Medical Milk Commissions, the national
organization responsible for maintaining standards, educating the public, and
encouraging milk producers to produce clean pure natural milk. Unbeknownst to the
other milk commissioners, Speakes was also the Executive Secretary of the Milk
Foundation that was closely aligned with Dr. Milton J. Rosenau and dedicated to
the eradication of raw milk
. By the time the raw milk producers and commissioners
realized that they were subverted, too much damage had been done. At the time
Speakes was fired in Washington DC
, the other commissioners discovered two
telephones sat on his desk, one for the Milk Commission and one for the
Milk
Foundation
. While in office, Speakes took over editorship of the official journal “Certified
Milk Magazine”. The word “raw” was rarely mentioned.
5) World War II led to the demise of the natural milk industry. Milk could not be shipped
halfway around the world in its natural state. This gave rise to massive pasteurization
and powdered pasteurized milk production.
6) Propaganda
was
disseminated
by
companies, groups and individuals with ulterior
motives, deceiving the general public, including doctors, who came to believe that
natural milk is dangerous.

Dr. Milton J. Rosenau created a momentum. That was continued by others who wrote
deceptive reports. Coronet Magazine's expert Dr. Harold Harris wrote, “Raw Milk Can Kill You,”
that headlined an article appearing in the May 1945 issue. He proclaimed, “Crossroads, U.S.A.,
is in one of those states in the Midwest area called the breadbasket and milk bowl of America.
Crossroads lies about twenty-five miles from the big city on a good paved highway...What
happened to Crossroads might happen to your town...might happen almost anywhere in
America.” Harris continued the story, describing in livid detail an epidemic of undulant fever in

95 MMWR, 1999, Vol. 48 / No. 40.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 36 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
Crossroads that infected 25% of the population and killed one in four. Case histories were
recounted to illustrate the subtle, debilitating nature of the disease. Investigation revealed the
town of “Crossroads” does not even exist. The entire article, because of the harm it did to the
natural milk industry, and indirectly to the health of the American people, was as irresponsible
as yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre.
The CDC, FDA and health departments in many states do likewise when they state their
scientifically unsubstantiated beliefs that raw milk is dangerous and “like playing Russian
roulette with your health”, as FDA employee John Sheehan stated on FDA’s websites. Those
comments are inflammatory, absurd, irresponsible and harmful to every American.

Dr. Harris told his wide-eyed readers, “A curious incident in New York City concerned a
physician who fell ill of brucellosis…and within a few days he was dead.” Harris wrote that the
source of his lethal infection of undulant fever (brucellosis) was cheese “dripping with germs”.
The story was another fabrication. Undulant fever does not cause death in a few days. Cheese
does not transmit undulant fever. Investigation through the New York City Health Department
revealed that there was no such case ever reported. Harris put forth many outlandish claims
and preposterous misstatements. These claims frightened people who drank natural milk.
Harris admitted to J. Howard Brown of Johns Hopkins University that he fabricated the whole
story. From his own writings, Harris revealed that he knew it could not have possibly happened.
Summary of Harris’ misstatements that duped Americans: 1) Undulant fever is common
in the United States. False. 2) Raw milk transmits undulant fever. False. 3) Cows that prove
positive for undulant fever can pass the germ in their milk. False. 4) Cows can transmit the pig
strain of undulant fever in their milk. False. 5) Undulant fever can be transmitted from cheese.
False. 6) Four thousand cases of typhoid fever in Montreal were caused by drinking natural
milk. False (it was pasteurized milk). 7) Drinking raw milk unnecessarily exposes one to illness.
False. 8) Ten percent of Americans are infected with undulant fever. False and preposterous.
9) Raw milk can be “as lethal as strychnine.” False and asinine.

The Ladies Home Journal, December 1944, reported, “A Kansas City survey proved that
nine percent of 7,122 school children entertained [undulant fever] infection.” “Entertained,” a
peculiar word in this context, could be interpreted by most people as meaning that almost 700
children of those surveyed ran around with undulant fever. That would be an epidemic. J.B.
Darlington (Rural New Yorker) investigated that claim. The report merely showed that 9% of the
children had a positive skin test to brucellosis, such as TB skin test, that indicated immunity.

Pasteurization-proponents continued their drive to stamp out natural milk with stories
like The Progressive’s on July 15, 1946. It reported, “Startling improvements in public health
invariably ensue when a community moves from raw to pasteurized milk. The Province of
Ontario, Canada had been overrun with undulant fever, typhoid, and other infectious diseases
when, in 1938, the provincial legislature made pasteurization compulsory in all communities...
deaths from typhoid were cut in half.” The real facts are: The official records from the Canadian
Public Health Journal and the Ontario Department of Health revealed that between 1912 and
1941 inclusive, a period of 29 years, there was a grand total of 2 deaths attributed, without
scientific proof and by survey only, to milk-borne typhoid. Cut in half from 2 to 1 in 29 years?
The report does not indicate whether the accused milk was natural or pasteurized. The other
245 typhoid deaths during that period were attributed to water and contaminated foods other
than milk. People like that have no shame with their harmful fabrications, much like the FDA and
CDC. As we pointed out in our analysis of the Coronet article, whether milk is pasteurized is
unrelated to developing typhoid.
The Reader's Digest, enlarging on the Progressive's hysterical, unscientifically based and
deceptive article a month later, reported: “…an estimated 45,000 persons will be stricken this
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 37 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
year with one or another of the lethal diseases carried by infected raw milk - diseases such as
diphtheria, streptococcus infections of the throat and tonsils, dysentery, scarlet fever, typhoid,
paratyphoid, and undulant fever. Still more thousands will suffer debilitating gastric and
intestinal disturbances which are likely to be put down to 'food-poisoning'. Thousands of infants
will contract diarrhea, more or less serious.”

In the dairy industry, nearly 100% of the advertising is done by the National Dairy
Council
and those closely affiliated with it and pasteurized dairy products. Raw milk is a
threat to their financial interests.
They viciously ensure their business stature and profits.
Examples can be gleaned from Alton Eliason, who worked for Knudsen dairy. Knudsen instigat-
ed the same type of subterfuge as Rosenau, Harris, Speakes, The Progressive and Readers’
Digest.96 Hence, the American people have been subjected to a one-sided propaganda
campaign, aided and abetted by the AMA-based health departments and medical organizations,
giving the propaganda power that depicts fresh, natural milk as a veritable bacterial soup and a
sure path to an early grave. Since California has had the only commercial raw dairies since mid
1980, we must view California’s recent history for the picture of raw dairy in America.

b.
CHRONOLOGY OF UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS AGAINST ALTA DENA DAIRY’S
RAW MILK IN CALIFORNIA
1969
The LA County Health Department, in January, supplied the Los Angeles Times, and the Times
reported with large headlines, that Alta-Dena raw milk was banned with the presumption of Q
Fever contamination.
Dairy experts testified in court that Q Fever is caught through inhalation into
the lungs and not by drinking milk.
1978
HERALD EXAMINER ACCUSED CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF
PREJUDICIAL TREATMENT AGAINST RAW MILK: At the time of this occurrence, raw milk
producers sought a Senate Bill to stop the prejudice. On 6/15/78, The LA Herald Examiner, after
recovering certain documents, accused California State health officials of falsifying bacterial reports
in an attempt to cause a Senate Bill regarding raw milk to fail. A State laboratory on June 4, 1978,
had claimed that the milk was positive (contaminated). An independent laboratory that tested for the
LA County Medical Milk Commission and a laboratory that did considerable tests for the state, re-
tested those samples and proved the milk was negative.
• Herald Examiner intoned there appeared to be a conspiracy among members of the California State
Health Department to eliminate raw dairy. The Senate Bill that would have directed the State Health
Department to oversee raw dairy no differently than other food products was to be considered the
following week.
• Instead of immediately releasing their fabricated findings⎯the State Health Department notified the
press on June 9th that people were going to get sick from salmonella food poisoning and that an
epidemic was imminent⎯long after the milk had been consumed by the public and just before the
hearing. There was no outbreak, but more headlines appeared.
ALTA DENA AND RAW MILK FALSELY ACCUSED: Inflammatory headlines appeared. “Raw
Milk Warning”-San Rafael Independent Journal (6/10/1978), “Some Raw Milk Found to be
Contaminated”-Star Free Press, Ventura, CA (6/11/1978), “Contaminated Milk Ordered Off
Shelves”-Sacramento Union (6/15/1978).

96 The Crimes Against Raw Milk, Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, quarterly
magazine, Weston A. Price Foundation, Washington, DC, Summer 2000, 59-63.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 38 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
RADIO ANNOUNCEMENTS WARNED THE PUBLIC: “not to drink raw milk from Alta-Dena
Dairy.”Amid the hysteria the bill was defeated. No one got sick and the Senate Bill failed.
STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT REPEATS EPISODE: December, 1978, the Health
Department repeated a warning; which created more hysteria. “State Issues Warning About Alta-
Dena Milk”-
Argus, Fremont, CA (12/9/78), “Dairy’s Raw Milk Again Under Fire”-Hemet News,
Hemet, CA (12/9/78, “Poisoned Milk Recalled”- Richmond Post, Oakland, CA (12/15/78) The
contaminated raw milk claims were again unsubstantiated; no one got sick from the milk.
• A “staff report” from the California Department of Health stated in a widely read publication,
“...evidence points to a continuing health hazard to the public consuming Alta-Dena's raw certified
milk.”97
1979
WARNINGS AGAIN REPEATED: “Tainted Milk Ordered Off Market Shelves”-San Gabriel
Valley Tribune, Covina, CA (2/10/79). Again, the allegations were unsubstantiated by tests: no one
got sick from the milk.
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL REPORTED DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FINDINGS:
That Alta-Dena was contaminated with Salmonella and was killing cancer patients with raw milk.
THE JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH IN AMERICA QUOTED THE BRITISH ARTICLE
extensively as if it were scientific fact.
SCOTTISH RESEARCH EXPERTS RESPONDED “We found no evidence of …life-threatening
potential on the part of salmonella…” They examined 700 cases in England without finding a
single serious case of salmonella infection.

1982 and 1983
NEVADA STATE INSPECTORS SEIZED ALTA-DENA RAW MILK
that was 21 days old, past the
expiration date, and claimed it contained salmonella. After 3 days of intensive investigation, the FDA
reported they found nothing of importance at Alta-Dena. Two State and two county laboratories
proved the milk was not contaminated.

IN SPITE OF A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH, CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTH
DEPARTMENT ISSUED WARNINGS 21+ days later, long after the milk had been consumed
without incident), not to drink Alta-Dena raw milk, not even give it to their pets
.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT LABELED AN “Alta-Dena associated case” when a fourteen-year old
boy contracted salmonella gastroenteritis. He could not remember drinking raw milk, although family
members (who did not get sick) did drink Alta-Dena raw milk. It was discovered that the boy and
his friend has spit toilet bowl water at each other for fun. Although that was the most likely
cause of salmonella gastroenteritis, the health department did not remove the association to
Alta-Dena milk
. Their media campaign devastated raw milk consumption. (I have many more cases
like this in my file.)
1984
VOGUE MAGAZINE’S HEALTH SECTION HEADLINED “A Raw-Milk Warning. A new
and dangerous fad: drinking raw or certified raw milk, also known as unpasteurized milk.. In a recent
newsletter of the California Council Against Health Frauds, John Bolton, M.D., cautions that people
drinking raw milk are at increased risk of salmonella infection, which can result in high fevers and
bloody diarrhea. In 1983, the risk of salmonella infection, was 118 times greater for those who drank
raw milk than for those who did not,”
referring to figures from 1944.
THAT INACCURATE STATEMENT IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING STATISTICS:

Disease attributed to raw milk and raw milk in ice cream
904 cases

Diseases attributed to pasteurized milk and pasteurized milk in ice cream 1,841 cases

97
New West, August 14, 1978.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 39 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
Darlington (Rural New Yorker), to emphasize the relative unimportance of milk in transmitting disease,
gives the following comparisons for the year 1944:


Disease attributed to milk and milk products

1,499 cases
Disease
attributed
to
water
2,686
cases

Disease attributed to foods other than milk

14,558 cases

Note: waterborne outbreak in Riverside, CA (CDC 1965)=16,000 people

RAW MILK ACCOUNTED FOR A LITTLE OVER TWO (2%) PERCENT OF THIS TOTAL AND
DARLINGTON COMMENTED, “…evidence to support the promotion of pasteurization is so difficult to
find that it must needs be distorted and in some cases even invented…an honest mind cannot fail to grasp
that the case for pasteurization is a very weak case indeed”.
1991-2
CONSUMERS UNION OF U.S., INC, with California pasteurized dairy producers filed suit
against Alta Dena diary for false advertising that raw milk was healthful and pasteurized was not.
Concurrently, STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT claimed raw dairy was a menace to its
population and banned Alta Dena from distribution and sale of raw milk for over one year until the
above case was settled in court. The court case was prejudiced with a UCLA-conducted Assessment
of the Risk of Salmonella dublin Infection Associated with the Use of Certified Raw Milk.98 The
Assessment was entirely theoretical- and statistically based on patient-unverified data from 1980-83,
with obvious serious flaws not only in reality-based science but statistical theory. It claimed that 95%
of the sporadic cases of S. dublin were caused by raw milk in California for the years 1980-83.
(Exhibit A, attached.) The court ruled that the health claims for raw milk were improper and ordered
all raw milk in California to carry a Government bacterial warning. Alta-Dena Dairy was sold but
continued to package raw dairy under the name Stueve’s Natural.

1997-1999
Dr. John Leedom, M.D. of the University of Southern California, a commissioner of the Los
Angeles County Medical Milk Commission (“LACDHS” certified raw milk produced and sold in
most of Los Angeles County) publicly vowed that even certified raw milk should be eliminated. 74
Three other of the six medical Commissioners joined Leedom’s agenda to eliminate raw dairy and the
votes were stacked against raw milk.99 ,100 The LACDHS’s liaison (Arthur Tilzer) to the
Commissioners publicly stated, passionately, he thought that all raw milk was dangerous and referred
to UCLA’s statistical Assessment as the basis for his prejudice against raw milk. However, a UCLA
statistician proved that the UCLA assessment is flawed; Exhibit B, page 39 of this report. For the next
two years, Dr. Leedom and the three other commissioners with the aid of Art Tilzer implemented
regulations so restrictive and prejudicial against raw milk that it was unfeasible for raw-milk
producers to stay in business.101 Consequently, Alta Dena Dairy’s new owners refused to package
Stueve’s Natural raw milk. Stueve’s Natural was bankrupt and has been unavailable since May 1999.


6) HOW CREDIBLE IS THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL REGARDING RAW MILK?

The CDC wrote and distributes a brochure/booklet on raw milk that is the same fraudulent

98 Public Health Reports, 1988, Vol. 103, No. 5, pp. 489-93
99 Raymond A. Novell’s letter to the LACMMC, June 12, 1998.
100 Attorney Raymond A. Novell’s letter to the LACBS, July 26, 1999.
101 James A. Privitera, MD, resigned Commissioner of LACMMC, in his letter to the LACBS, December
18, 2000.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 40 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
rhetoric as the FDA-written literature on raw milk. In 1967, the CDC went public with statements
that led to news articles. One article appeared in a technical milk journal in December, and
three months later, March, 1968, the same material reappeared in the Journal of the American
Medical Association. The first article blamed salmonella-contamination of powdered milk on raw
milk from 1 cow out of 800 dairy farms. That particular plant handled 11 million pounds of milk
every year from tens of thousands of cows. It would be impossible, even statistically, for one
cow to be responsible. No scientific tests were done to prove or disprove the accusation. The
dilutive factor alone makes this supposition unfeasible. There was no science to this claim.

From a CDC publication, “An analysis of salmonella cases in the United States in 1979 and
1980 from seventeen states...showed that eleven of thirty-two patients had a history of raw milk
ingestion.” If only one-third (11 of 32) of the victims ingested raw milk, what did the other two
thirds ingest? Why claim it was raw milk? And why weren’t there epidemics? Certainly other
people drank the same natural milk. Dr. Nancy Mann, PhD, Biostatistics, explains it in her
analysis and refutation of the UCLA Assessment of the Risk of Salmonella dublin
Infection Associated with the Use of Certified Raw Milk
. (Exhibit B.)

In 1976, a CDC report showed that the areas with the highest incidence of salmonella food-
poisoning were Hawaii, New Mexico, District of Columbia, Louisiana, and Massachusetts.
Those are states that did not allow raw milk. If they had, you can believe that natural milk would
have been accused for much of it. What were responsible for their cases? Were they
detoxification such as a cold or flu from prolonged poor diets?

The CDC, July 1977, issued a report that Q Fever (the one the Department Of Health used
earlier), can be contracted from raw milk.102 Q Fever has never been contracted from drinking
milk, natural or pasteurized. The disease comes only from inhaling the organisms as stated.

Without any scientific testing and conclusive proof, the Ph.D's, M.D.'s and veterinarians at
the CDC editorialized, “...salmonella contamination of unpasteurized milk can be a persistent
problem, even in dairies that follow the procedures recommended by the American Association
of Medical Milk Commission...” They concluded, “Present day technology cannot produce raw
milk (including that listed as certified) that can be assured to be free of pathogens; only with
pasteurization is there this assurance.” That is an obviously fraudulent after all that we
reviewed, especially with the widespread and immense outbreaks and incidences of illness
attributed to pasteurized milk and pasteurized milk products. (RFNM p. 15-17.) Present day
technology solved the problems of producing clean raw milk years ago with the
introduction of the closed-system automatic milking machine.

The CDC issued a report for the doctors in the California Department of Health, reporting that
Alta Dena’s natural milk “has been implicated in outbreaks of salmonella in 1958, 1964, and
1971-1975.”103 The CDC did not have scientific evidence to validate these survey-based claims.
When Alta Dena produced raw milk and supplied the entire United States, they sold approxim-
ately 50,000 gallons of raw milk daily that was not under the over-restrictive regulations imposed
in the 1990’s. There was not one scientifically proved outbreak of bacterial food-poisoning
caused by Alta Dena’s raw milk. The lack of disease from that natural milk is certainly as much
proof as anyone could need that raw milk is the best and safest to drink.

As we stated earlier, the misinformation and hysteria in the lay press has been initiated

102 MMWR, July 22, 1977.
103 MMWR, March 1, 1981.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 41 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
and/or supported by the majority of professional organizations without science: American
Veterinary Medical Association, AMA, American Dental Association, American Academy of
Pediatrics, FDA, CDC, National Dairy Council, State and county health departments, U.S.
Animal Health Association, National Association of State Public Health, Veterinarians, and
Conference of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.

Not everyone associated with that elitist group is guilty of intentional malice and falsifying
statistics against natural milk, but the blindly ignorant reporting that is promoting phobic
superstition against raw milk is illegal and immoral, and predisposes the public to tremendous ill
health. Nationwide, there is a growing advocacy in support of alternative medicine as a backlash
to the shenanigans above and the failure of medicine to help the body heal. Some of the public
no longer trusts its medical authorities.

Dr. J.M. Prucha, professor emeritus in dairy bacteriology, University of Illinois, said 55 years
ago, “There was much opposition to pasteurization of milk and at best, it was looked upon as a
temporary expedient to obtain a safe milk supply until the time when the dairy industry would
learn to produce clean and safe milk.” 104 As we mentioned, present-day technology solved the
problem of “clean” milk years ago with the closed-system milking machines. Also, as we
mentioned, natural milk that was grossly unclean proved not to be dangerous.

7) BACTERIOLOGY

Salmonella is in your nose, living room rug, in your gut, plenty in your hair and on your pets.
In some cat populations, it is as high as 40%.105 It is also in your food - all of your food that
hasn't been sterilized and sealed in a container. Ninety percent are household-borne or food-
service establishment-borne and institution-borne such as hospitals.106
Salmonella is
ubiquitous, as are most bacteria.

A CDC report in 1978 attributed salmonella food-poisoning to mayonnaise, water, Mexican
food, potato salad, hamburger casserole, and tacos. Even Peruvian fish meal and turtles have
been accused of salmonella food-poisoning. Natural milk, even when present with salmonella,
has never been proved to cause salmonella food-poisoning. Experience is proof; ask anyone
from Missouri – the “show me” state.

The pasteurization of milk had no effect on the incidence of tuberculosis caused by

milk. Humans can drink milk from a tubercular cow with impunity. In cows, the blood-
membrane barrier prevents the tubercule bacteria from passing into the milk. Intestinal TB was
previously believed to be caused by tubercular milk from a tubercular milker hacking into the
milk pail. All of that was merely speculation. Regardless, all of that has been eliminated by
closed-system milking machines. Presently, it is rare to find a cow with active tuberculosis.

Similarly, contrary to popular opinion, incidences of brucellosis (undulant fever) were not
affected by milk, pasteurized or raw. Brucellosis is not contracted through milk. It seems to be
due to direct contact with animals, especially in slaughter houses where humidity suspends
animal cells released into the air from butchering. Farm-children who drank so much milk,
seldom got the disease. It cannot be scientifically attributed to milk. Were effected children
present during butchering? That answer should reveal much. Maybe the human body was
designed to handle breathing a certain amount of animals’ cells during the kill, slaughter and

104 Milk Facts, Milk Industry Foundation, New York City, 1946-47.
105 History of Randleigh Farms, pp.255.
106 World Health Organization, Fact Sheet #139.
EXHIBIT A

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 42 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
eating but not to inhale slaughtered animals’ cells all day long daily as a profession.

Until the 1950’s, milk regularly contained bacterial counts of 3 million ml (200 times of current
regulations) and there were no epidemics scientifically proved to be caused by natural milk. Our
children were healthier then than they are now. The testimony within these pages is proof that
raw milk is undeniably an asset, even when ridden with pathogens.

We must also consider that humans are becoming more toxic daily with pollution in
food, air, water and medication. That toxicity should be detoxified from the body. That
often requires body-janitors, that are sometimes bacterial or viral infections. Also strains
of bacteria have become immune to antibacterial agents and humans are becoming
unable to endure bacterial or viral detoxification. It has been scientifically proved that
humans and other animals become immune to bacteria to which they are exposed in
food, contact or airborne. It is morally and legally correct for us to allow people, who
want to develop or continue their natural symbiosis and resistance to bacteria, to daily
ingest bacteria.

Incidence per 100,000 population
50

Typhoid fever
40
Nontyphoid Salmonella

30

20

10

0
1920

1940

1960

1980

Year
Figure 1. Reported incidence of typhoid fever and nontyphoid salmonellosis in the United States, 1920-1995.

The decline in raw milk consumption met with a dramatic increase in Salmonella illness.
Looking at the CDC’s Figures 1, above, we can see that the gross decline of natural milk
consumption did not meet with a corresponding decrease in bacterial illness, as would be
expected from the perspectives of health officials and doctors. Contrarily, rapid increase in
Salmonella illness has been steady since 1945 accompanied by the decline in raw milk
consumption.
The steepest continual climb in bacterial illness started in 1985 and the incidences remain
50% higher than when raw milk was readily available throughout the country. The increase is
much greater and cannot be accounted for with increased population. The cause of this
tremendous increase in Salmonella illness, more likely than not, was caused by the deprivation
of raw products from the American people.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 43 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz

12

10

Rate per
8
100,000

population
6

4

2

0
1970 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96

Year
Total
New
England
Mid
Atlantic
Pacific
Other

▪▪▪▪▪
▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
▬▬
- * -
▬▬
Figure 2. Salmonella Enteritidis isolation rates from humans by region United States, 1970-1996. 107

Raw milk consumption in the USA declined from, conservatively, 140 million consumers, in
1935 to 16 million in 1975. From 1982-84 there was a major decline in the consumption of raw
milk in California, and the country, due to health departments, the media campaign and the
federal legislation against raw milk in 1987. However, the greatest increases in salmonellosis
cases occurred from 1982-86, corresponding with increased assaults on raw milk.
In 1991-92, Californians suffered again because of the deprivation of raw milk for a period of
one year. When it returned to the shelves it had a Government-warning label that frightened
many people. CDC’s Figure 2, above, illustrates the incidences of Salmonella enteritis in the
region that includes California. Again, if the CDC, FDA and most doctors were accurate in their
accusations against natural milk, the figures would have shown a dramatic decrease in
salmonellosis beginning in 1991. However, instead of a decline in salmonellosis when raw milk
was unavailable and returned with a warning-label that frightened people, there was a
tremendous increase in salmonellosis. In every case, deprivations of raw milk resulted in
tremendous increases in salmonellosis. It is probable and reasonably argued that the increases
resulted from the deprivation of raw milk and increased consumption of toxic pasteurized milk.

8)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Raw milk is relatively safe without regulation whereas pasteurized milk should require harsh
and strict regulations. It is clear that the standard testing requirements for Grade A milk are
more than is required to produce safe raw milk for public consumption. It should be remembered
that natural milk produced even under gross conditions had rarely been associated with cause
of an epidemic. All proved food-related outbreaks in the public were caused by processed and
restaurant food. That lends support to the fact that natural milk, if produced with just a modicum
of cleanliness is safe because of its built-in safeguards that are destroyed in pasteurization.
(RFNM p. 27-29.)

The barrage of present-day bacterial misinformation thrust upon the public is predominantly
unscientific survey-association and speculation regarding raw milk and not based on empirical
examination. (RFNM p. 34-39.) Such dissemination of misinformation by the HHS, FDA and
CDC must be stopped immediately.

107 Both charts, Figures 1 & 2, are from CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1997, pp.
426, and 429 respectively.
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 44 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz

California State Codes for Grade A raw milk are more than adequate to insure safe Grade A
raw milk for all Americans. The vast majority of Californians enjoy the freedom to consume
Grade A raw milk. (DHS Report, p. 4, ¶ 2.) All Americans should have the same freedom,
especially those who are of ethnic groups who largely can drink natural milk without allergic
reactions and experience allergies to pasteurized milk. (RFNM p.19.)

Everyone is so brainwashed in schools and by media that they believe raw milk is dangerous
and causes disease. Usually, when doctors discover that an ailing person consumes raw dairy
products, very often they automatically attribute that person’s illness or disease to consuming
raw milk products. That is exactly what health departments do routinely. They blame symptoms
of vomit and diarrhea on anything that is natural and raw. They have developed a myth that
people are more likely to die by consuming “pathogenic” bacteria than chemical poisoning.
However, they cannot have it both ways; pathogenic means disease-causing. Developing
disease takes time and repeated toxic exposure. Very often, anaphylaxis comes from chemical
poisoning including chemically treated or processed foods, frequently from vaccines, resulting in
many yearly deaths. Anyone who believes that raw milk can cause death or serious disease
believes myth and does not know the empirical science of raw dairy.

We recommend that possible metabolic and environmental causes of vomit and diarrhea
must be explored where “pathogens” are found. The questions must be asked: Are pathogens
the cause or result of degenerative disease? Are they the cause or the cure? Is the term
"pathogen" a misnomer when applied to microbes accused in cases of “food-poisoning”? Is
pointing the finger at microbes a distraction from the causes of disease? Is food-processing and
the pollution of our food, water and air predominantly the cause of disease that fosters vomit
and diarrhea? All hypotheses must be open to independent testing and researchers held
accountable to the rules of evidence without influence of special interests.

We recommend that the probability that E.coli 0157H:7, because it reacts as if it is man-
made, be investigated by independent researchers, and possibly purposely released into the
American population. Especially, considering the unusual event of the suspiciously controlled
contamination of our spinach crop in 2006.

Rather than the auto-immune-inoculation theory, evidence supports that we form working
relationships with bacteria and pathogens. From the time babies are born they put everything in
their mouths, including dirt and microbes. Some scientists call this "auto-inoculation". It is
believed that babies build microbe-symbiosis through small doses of bacteria, allergens, and
pathogens. Microbes labeled “pathogenic” have a janitorial role in nature and we can benefit
from them. When parents stop babies from putting stuff in their mouths, they hinder the
relationship with microbes and the environment, unless of course the objects are poisonous,
such as man-made chemicals, including many toys.

The greatest agricultural loss today is due to our destruction of fresh raw milk and fresh raw
juices through pasteurization, flash-pasteurization, ultra-pasteurization, and ultra high
temperature pasteurization that turned nutritious raw milk into a white, dangerous “milk-flavored
drink” and juices into high-sugar soft-drinks. When we properly understand milk, its destructive
effects when heat-treated, and by contrast its remarkable therapeutic effects when consumed
natural, we can cut billions of dollars off our medical bills, make ourselves infinitely healthier,
and actually raise the I.Q. of our children. Smarter children add greatly to our scientific and
cultural wealth. We do not consider it an exaggeration to state that the nation's destiny is
affected by what we do about milk. Adults and their children should have the choice and right to
EXHIBIT A
REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 45 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
develop natural immunity as well as reap the health benefits of raw milk and avoid the bacterial
and health hazards of pasteurized milk.

No one can explain how raw milk works, just that it works. Modern day science cannot
explain how electricity works but we certainly utilize it. It has even caused deaths but we treat it
like a necessity. Thus far, we have proved that raw milk is extremely health-giving and unlikely
to cause disease even with many “pathogens”. The amount of common diarrhea and/or vomit
that health departments have “attributed to” raw milk is negligible and the least of any food. We
should honor raw milk with the same utility and necessity of electricity for those who want and
need it.

Harris Moak, M.D., a well-respected physician of the early 20th century, asked rhetorically,
“Does it seem at all likely that public health officials, the great majority of whom are Doctors of
Medicine as well as Doctors of Public Health, will ever deny their brothers in the medical
profession the right to have…raw milk with which to meet the widely varying needs of their
practice?”

Will you?

Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly review this time-consuming but important Report.

William Campbell Douglass, M.D.
Aajonus Vonderplanitz, Ph.D. Nutrition
EXHIBIT A

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 46 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz

March 3, 2001
To: Dr. Aajonus Vonderplanitz

From: Nancy R. Mann, Ph.D. (Biostatistics, UCLA, 1965)

Re:
Assessment of the Excess Risk of Salmonella dublin Infection Associated with the
Use of Raw Milk, Public Health Reports, Vol. 103, No. 5.

This is a study that was conducted at UCLA from data involving cases of Salmonella
dublin reported to the State of California Department of Health Services in the period
1980-83. The purpose was "to determine the risk of serious illness attributable to
infection with Salmonella dublin associated with the consumption of certified raw milk."

From the 1980-83 data that were made available by the State of California Department of
Health Services, the investigators concluded that the rate of reported S. dublin infections
acquired by users of certified raw milk, which was supplied by the Alta-Dena Dairy, was in
the range of 8 to 35 cases per 100,000 users per year.

Knowledge not determined here is :

What lifestyle variables exhibited particularly by the raw-milk users might have provided
alternative causes for acquiring the infection?

This information is especially important, considering that if S dublin were acquired from
certified raw milk supplied by the Alta-dena Dairy, or
from pasteurized milk in the other
cases studied, then necessarily epidemics would
result in most, if not all, of the cases. Since
no epidemics were reported,
one must conclude that the cases of S. dublin reported for users
of both raw and
pasteurized milk were the result of lifestyle variables or previous health
conditions.

EXHIBIT B

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 47 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
June 24, 1999

Dear Dr. Aajonus Vonderplanitz,

I have been meaning to sit down and write this letter for a few months now, however, being
blessed as I am with two wonderfully healthy, energetic little girls, I do not find myself sitting
often.

Sydera and Chelsea are both doing excellently. As you may remember, Chelsea has
enjoyed eating all raw foods since she was introduced to them when I weaned her from breast
feeding. This is still true for her. She continues to choose raw foods over cooked when given the
option.

Sydera did not adapt as easily to the raw diet. We were able to substitute raw milk and
cream, fruits and vegetables, raw honey and raw nuts for foods that she was already eating but raw
meat was too foreign to her. It took seven months of waiting, but she finally decided, on her own,
to discover why Mommy, Daddy, and baby sister loved raw meat so much. Now she is quite
pleased to tell anyone who will listen that Meat is Yummy!

Sydera has always been our strong-willed child. She can throw a tantrum with the best of
them. In fact, one of her most infamous fits occurred in a Walmart store. I carried her out of the
store kicking and screaming. When I reached my car, I actually had a police officer approach me
and tell me to step away from the child. He figured, judging by her demeanor, that I was hurting
her in some way when in all actuality it was my 3 ½ year old daughter who was behaving violently.
I had the bruises to prove it. After this incident I was devastated. I felt that I had failed as a parent.
If I could not control the situation when my child was this small how could I possibly be a good
parent as she got older? I spoke to my doctor, to my family, and to other parents - everyone
assured me that she would grow out of it. It was just a phase they said, while this may be true for
some children, it was not true for mine.

Sydera did not improve with time, in fact, her tantrums grew more and more violent. I tried
everything - time outs, taking away favorite toys, rewarding good behavior, following a strict
schedule, extra attention - none of it worked. It wasn’t until I tried raw foods as a part of her diet
that I saw any signs of promise. We cut out the processed sugar and gave her raw fruits and
unheated honey. We replaced junk drinks with non-pasteurized raw apple juice. We substituted
her old brand of milk for raw milk from a local farm. With each new change emerged a calmer,
more alert little girl.

Sydera is more patient and is not so quick to throw a tantrum. She is able to remain calm
when she is upset and listen to reason instead of screaming at the top of her lungs until she gets put
in her room. She talks about what she is feeling instead of resorting to an all out hitting, kicking,
screaming fit. On the rare occasion that she experiences a “moment”, as we now call them, I can
always trace the cause back to something that she ate. Thanks to the raw diet we spend less time in
conflict and more time enjoying one another.

For Chelsea, the move to raw food has been a relatively easy transition. She was a breast
fed baby until she turned one year old. When she was weaned, she went straight to raw milk and
ground sirloin. We noticed a change in her almost immediately following the introduction of raw
foods into her diet. Chelsea had always been small for her age. Each visit to the pediatrician had
the same result, she always measured below the 25th percentile for both height and weight in her
age category. When she was nine months old our pediatrician prescribed an iron supplement for
her because her iron level was too low. When she was retested after three months there had been
no change in her iron level. We were instructed to continue with the vitamins and have her retested
again in three months. At this same time we began the raw diet. The results were almost

EXHIBIT C
Page 1

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 48 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz

instantaneous. Chelsea nearly doubled in size, finally reaching her ideal height and weight, her
teeth began to come in, she began to walk, she stopped being sick all of the time, and even though
we had decided not to continue with the iron supplements, her iron level reached a safe level on its
own.

Where we live in Connecticut it is relatively easy to obtain the raw foods that my family
loves. I have learned that this is not the case in all states. On a trip to Indiana last Christmas I
discovered that I could not purchase raw milk anywhere. I had not brought milk with us because I
figured that I would certainly be able to purchase raw milk in Indiana. They have lots of dairy
farms. I was wrong. I soon learned that farmers were afraid to sell raw milk because of
repercussions they could face from the Board of Health. Chelsea cried for milk for days before I
gave in and purchased a gallon of milk at a local grocery store. At first, Chelsea kind of looked at
me as if to say, What is this? I want milk. But she drank it and so did I. That same night we were
both violently ill, Chelsea more so than me. We both experienced vomiting and diarrhea. Poor
Chelsea vomited six times in her sleep. Her vomit looked and smelled like sour milk. Thank
goodness she was in our bedroom so we were able to hear her and get her up. I felt like I had a bad
hangover, minus the alcohol. At first, I thought we had caught some type of bug all though I could
not figure out why no one else was sick. There were six other people in the house and no one else
was even the slightest bit ill. It was Christmas so we had visited tons of family members both the
day before and the actual day that we got sick. No one else experienced even the slightest bit of
what we had experienced.

I could not figure it out until we went for a second visit 2 months later. This time I brought
raw milk but when it ran out I bought another gallon of pasteurized milk at a local store and, after
drinking it, Chelsea once again became ill. (I did not drink the milk this time.) It was the
pasteurized milk!

It has been four months since this experience and Chelsea is still afraid to drink any milk.
Once, she would eagerly accept a cup of raw milk, drink it down, and ask for more. Now she cries
when we give her raw milk and will not drink it until we reassure her that we are giving her the
Good milk. Other than this instance, things are going great for us with our raw food diet. We have
all been healthier than ever. Before the diet, someone in the family would be at the doctor’s office
at least once every six weeks (usually Chelsea), no one has been since we started eating raw foods.
Chelsea has become our teacher. She eats whatever her body craves, often going straight for the
raw meat, and is probably the healthiest person in our family because of it. And a child shall
lead…
Mrs. Mikel J. Theobald
Bloomfield, Connecticut

EXHIBIT C
Page 2


REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 49 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz

James R. Privitera, M.D.
105 North Grandview Street • Covina, California 91723
(626) 966-1618 • Fax(626) 966-7226 • www.privitera.com
Allergy and Nutrition

June 4, 2007

U.S. Senators and Representatives
Capitol Hill
Washington, DC 20009

Dear Senators and Representatives,

I asked Dr. Vonderplanitz to read my statement to you because my patient-schedule is too full during
the pre-holiday season to attend this enormously important meeting in person. However, I am here in
spirit and concern for the rights of all Americans to have health-giving raw milk available nationally.

I am Dr. James Privitera, M.D. who resigned as Los Angeles County Medical Milk Commissioner in
2000. I resigned because the other Milk Commissioners failed to consider a reasonable approach to
certifying raw milk. My opinion and 30-years expertise on raw milk were basically wasted. The
Milk Commissioners made the requirements so difficult that raw milk, no matter that it was good,
clean and safe, would rarely if ever pass inspection and be so costly that it would not be profitable.
That forced Alta Dena Dairy/Stueve’s to refuse to produce and package raw milk and ended raw-milk
production in Los Angeles County. Thankfully, the Los Angeles County legislators realized the harm
done by its milk commissioners, and changed the law in 2001, so that people of California could buy
raw milk in any store. They ruled that the regulations for raw milk are the same as for Grade A milk
for meant for pasteurization, and dissolved the medical milk commission.

All Americans deserve to have health-giving raw dairy. Raw milk is the only proved safe and health-
giving milk. Citizens should have your respect that they are intelligent enough to know what is right
and good for them. They should have the right to choose. They should not be punished because of
raw-milk-prejudiced minds in governmental authority.

I implore you to consider our right to choose and our well-being and vote to align the U.S. code for
raw milk with the California State code permitting Grade A and Guaranteed raw milk.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

EXHIBIT D


REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 50 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
American Association of
Medical Milk Commission, Inc.
1824 Hillhurst Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90027-4408
Phone (323) 664-1977
Facsimile (323) 664-0870

President
Paul M. Fleiss, M.D., M.P.H.

June 12, 2007

United States Senators and Representatives
Capitol Hill
Washington, DC 20009

Dear Senators and Representatives,

I hope that you, your family and associates are well and happy.

I am Dr. Paul Fleiss, M.D., the incumbent President of the American
Association of Medical Milk Commission. I wish I were able to deliver
this important message but my patient load restricts me. Dr.
Vonderplanitz will deliver my statement of deep concern to you.

I have recommended to mothers of my child patients who were not
breast feeding to feed their children raw milk for over 35 years. Raw
milk is the safest and healthiest single food for children and adults. I
ask you to draft a law that will make raw milk available to everyone in
America at no more than Grade A standards.

It is our right as intelligent people to have the right to choose. Please
act in a manner that reflects you respect us and our right to have U.S.-
approved Grade A raw milk.

Thank you for your consideration and understanding.

Sincerely,

Dr. Paul Fleiss


EXHIBIT E

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 51 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz

DAVID J. NOORTHOEK, M.D.

488 OAK BROOKE CT.
SANTA ROSA, CA 95409
TELEPHONE 707--539--4100

December 26, 2000

TO:

LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 500 VVEST TEMPLE
STREET
LOS ANGLEES, CA.90012

I have been a medical doctor in the state of California for
about 40 years. I was a partner in Kaiser Permanente for
thirty years and have taught at the University of California
Medical School in San Francisco for many years.

Raw milk was originally banned because of the threat of
infecting the public with tuberculosis. This threat has
passed away many years ago. I never recommended raw milk to
my patients or used raw dairy products personally. However, I
do not see any harm in permitting the public to purchase raw
dairy products if such products comply with present California
State law.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly,

David Noorthoek M.D.

EXHIBIT F

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 52 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
Subject: Fwd: Effects of Homogenization and Pasteurization of milk
From: Earl D Smith <pinkys6@juno.com
To: rawzen@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:13:33 -0700

Earl D Smith DVM
163 Cedar Circle,
Parachute, Colorado 81635
Phone 970-285-9029

I am a retired Veterinarian; I doctored horses and cattle for 25 years
and then I did only the Small Animals. The article I read in Discover
Magazine on milk brought back many memories. When the farmers kept a
milk cow on the farm to feed the weaner calves, there were few digestive
problems. But when no dairy cows were available they went to the local
store and got “Store Bought” milk for the calves to drink. Soon the
calves died with diarrhea. I thought milk was milk but I soon found out
that the Pasteurized and Homogenized milk could not be digested by these
calves. Homogenization broke the fat globule into such a small bit that
it wouldn’t curd in the stomach and passed directly into the small
intestine where it created severe inflammation. I called it toxic
enteritis. I learned to treat these cases with Goats milk which has the
largest fat globule of any milk found on the farm. The calves made a
quick recovery if the patient hadn’t gotten too debilitated.
.

I too drank a lot of milk when we milked cows on the farm. I never
had any adverse effects from drinking a quart or more at one time. When
I went on to college and I was using “store bought milk” I got so I drank
very little milk and what I did drink reacted in my system like a poison.
I was told I was allergic to milk. Now 50 years later, a friend, who has a
milk cow out in the country, asked me if I could use some milk. I
accepted and for three years now I can drink milk like I did when I lived
on the farm. I have no adverse side effects. This milk is raw milk, also
not Homogenized. The only other question I have to answer has to do with
the effect pasteurization has on the natural enzymes. The destruction
of these during the pasteurization process could affect the digestibility
of milk. Now that I am retired I have plenty of time to reflect on such
things. What do you think?

Sincerely Yours,
Earl D. Smith, DVM

EXHIBIT G

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 53 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Raw Milk Is Good For You

Raw Milk by Thomas Cowan, M.D.
LILIPOH #6, Nutrition and the Land
http://lilipoh.com/issues/articles/rawmilk.htm
As many of us might agree, there are very few subjects as emotionally charged as the choice
of one's diet. Sexual relations, marriage and finances come to mind as similarly intense
subjects and, like diet, each of us is sure we know all we need to know about each of these
areas. The subject of milk, as I have discovered in the past four years when properly viewed,
will challenge every notion you currently have about what is good food and what isn't.

The story of milk is complex and its history goes something like this: Back in the pre-
processed food era (i.e., before about 1930 in the U.S.) milk was considered a highly prized
food, especially for children. Not only was there an entire segment of our economy built up
around milk, but as I remember, each house had its own direct milk chute for the delivery of
fresh milk. It was unquestioned that milk was good for us and that a safe, plentiful milk
supply was actually vital to our national health and well-being. It was also a time (now I'm
referring to the early part of the century) when many of the illnesses which we currently
suffer from were rare. As an example, family doctors would often go their whole careers
without ever seeing a patient with significant coronary artery disease, breast or prostate
cancer. This is something current doctors can hardly go one month before they encounter
such a patient. Furthermore, as scientists such as Western Price, D.D.S., had discovered,
there were pockets of extremely healthy, long-lived people scattered about the earth who
used dairy products in various forms as the staple of their diets - further evidence that milk
and its products were amongst the most healthful foods human beings have ever encountered.

If we fast forward to the 1980's we now find an entirely different picture. For one, there have
been numerous books written in the past decade about the dangers of dairy products - the
most influential being a book called Don't Drink Your Milk1 by Frank Oski, M.D. He is the
current chairman of Pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University and perhaps the most influential
pediatrician in this country. In his book, he pins just about each health problem in children to
the consumption of milk, including everything from acute and chronic ear infections to
constipation, asthma, eczema, etc. Secondly, just about all patients, on their initial visit,
proudly announce that they have a good diet and that, specifically, they don't eat dairy (which
they pronounce with such disdain). One might well ask here where is the truth in this picture?

Perhaps the experiments of Dr. Frances Pottenger in the 1940's can help to solve this
mystery. In these experiments Dr. Pottenger fed similar groups of animals (usually cats) a
diet of exclusively milk. Half ate cooked milk (i.e., pasteurized), the other ate uncooked (i.e.,
"raw" milk). The results were conclusive and astounding. Those that ate raw milk did well,
lived long, happy, active lives free of any signs of degenerative disease. Those that ate
pasteurized milk suffered from acute illnesses (vomiting, diarrhea) and succumbed to every
degenerative disease now flourishing in our population. By the third generation, a vast
majority of the cats were infertile and exhibited "anti-social" behavior. In short, medically
speaking, they were like many modern Americans.

Page 1 of 2; EXHIBIT H

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 54 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
Since the 40's, the "qualities" of milk have been extensively studied to try to find an
explanation for these dramatic changes. We have heard discussed that before heating, milk is
a living food rich in colloidal minerals, rich in enzymes which are necessary for the
absorption and utilization of the sugars and fats in the milk. We have also heard that milk has
a cortisone-like factor which is heat sensitive (i.e. destroyed by heat) in the cream; that milk
has an enzyme phosphatase which allows the body to absorb the calcium from the milk; that
milk has lactase - an enzyme which allows for the digestion of lactose; and that milk has
beneficial bacteria and lactic acids which allow these beneficial bacteria to implant in the
intestines.

All of these qualities are lost in the heating of milk. It then becomes rotten, with precipitated
minerals which can't be absorbed (hence osteoporosis), with sugars that can't be digested and
with fats which are toxic. With this in mind, we can quickly see what has happened in the
past sixty years.

Raw milk has been used in therapy, in folk medicine and even in the Mayo Clinic for
centuries. It has been used in the pre-insulin days to treat diabetes (I've tried it, it works),
eczema, intestinal worms, allergies, arthritis, and other afflictions, all for reasons which can
be understood when we examine just what is in milk (e.g., the cortisone-like factor for
allergies and eczema). Rarely is anyone truly allergic to grass-fed cows' milk (feeding high
protein feeds to the cows changes the milk, making it more allergenic).

Yet apart from all these explanations is perhaps the real key: fresh raw milk is a living,
unprocessed, whole food. Compare this to the supposedly "healthy" soy milk which has been
washed in acids, alkali, ultrapasteurized, then allowed to sit in a box for some months.

The lessons of studying milk and Pottenger's cats are profound for the American health
scene. One of them is also simple: processed, dead foods don't support life or a happy, well-
functioning society. This can only happen if people return to eating pure, wholesome,
unprocessed foods.

In my practice I always start there. I encourage, insist and even beg people to eat real foods,
no matter what the problem. Often with just this intervention the results are gratifying. So,
find a cow, find a farmer, make sure the cow (goat, llama, or whichever other milk source) is
healthy and start your return to good health.

References:
1. Don't Drink Your Milk, Frank Oski, M.D., Park City Press (published date not supplied).

2. Dr. Frances Pottinger was a pathologist working in the 40's who tested the theories of Dr.
Price on cats_ that is that fresh raw foods are the healthiest for animal growth and
development. His book is Pottenger's Cats, A Case Study in Nutrition by Francis M.
Pottenger, Jr., M.D., 1983. Available from Price-Pottenger Foundation (619)574-7763 or the
Gerson Institute.

Thomas Cowan, M.D., graduated from Michigan State Medical School in 1984. He is now a
family practitioner with special interests in nutritional and anthroposophical medicine. His
office, Noone Falls Health Care, is located at 50 Jaffrey Rd., Suite 125, Peterborough, NH
03458, (603) 924-3644.
Page 2 of 2; EXHIBIT H

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 55 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz

MORE ABOUT RAW MILK
by Sally Fallon

We have been taught that pasteurization is a good thing, a method of protecting ourselves
against infectious diseases, but closer examination reveals that its merits have been highly
exaggerated. The modern milking machine and stainless steel tank, along with efficient
packaging and distribution, make pasteurization totally unnecessary for the purposes of
sanitation. And pasteurization is no guarantee of cleanliness. All outbreaks of salmonella
from contaminated milk in recent decades -- and there have been many – have occurred in
pasteurized milk. This includes a 1985 outbreak in Illinois that struck 14,316 people causing
at least one death. The salmonella strain in that batch of pasteurized milk was found to be
genetically resistant to both penicillin and tetracycline. Raw milk contains lactic-acid-
producing bacteria that protect against pathogens. Pasteurization destroys these helpful
organisms, leaving the finished product devoid of any protective mechanism should
undesirable bacteria inadvertently contaminate the supply. Raw milk in time turns pleasantly
sour while pasteurized milk, lacking beneficial bacteria, will putrefy.

But that’s not all that pasteurization does to milk. Heat alters milk’s amino acids lysine and
tyrosine, making the whole complex of proteins less available; it promotes rancidity of
unsaturated fatty acids and destruction of vitamins. Vitamin C loss in pasteurization usually
exceeds 50%; loss of other water-soluble vitamins can run as high as 80%; the Wulzen or
anti-stiffness factor is totally destroyed. Pasteurization alters milk’s mineral components such
as calcium, chlorine, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur as well as
many trace minerals, making them less available. There is some evidence that pasteurization
alters lactose, making it more readily absorbable. This, and the fact that pasteurized milk puts
an unnecessary strain on the pancreas to produce digestive enzymes, may explain why milk
consumption in civilized societies has been linked with diabetes.

Last but not least, pasteurization destroys all the enzymes in milk -- in fact, the test for
successful pasteurization is absence of enzymes. These enzymes help the body assimilate all
bodybuilding factors, including calcium. That is why those who drink pasteurized milk may
suffer, nevertheless, from osteoporosis. Lipase in raw milk helps the body digest and utilize
butterfat. After pasteurization, chemicals may be added to suppress odor and restore taste.
Synthetic vitamin D2 or D3 is added -- the former is toxic and has been linked to heart
disease while the latter is difficult to absorb. The final indignity is homogenization which has
also been linked to heart disease.

Powdered skim milk is added to the most popular varieties of commercial milk -- one-percent
and two-percent milk. Commercial dehydration methods oxidize cholesterol in powdered
milk, rendering it harmful to the arteries. High temperature drying also creates large
quantities of nitrate compounds, which are potent carcinogens.

Modern pasteurized milk, devoid of its enzyme content, puts an enormous strain on the
body’s digestive mechanism. In the elderly, and those with milk intolerance or inherited

Page 1 of 2; EXHIBIT I

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 56 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
weaknesses of digestion, this milk passes through not fully digested and can clog the tiny
villi of the small intestine, preventing the absorption of vital nutrients and promoting the
uptake of toxic substances. The result is allergies, chronic fatigue and a host of degenerative
diseases.

All the healthy milk-drinking populations studied by Dr. Price subsisted on raw milk, raw
cultured milk or raw cheese from normal animals eating fresh grass or fodder. It is very
difficult to find this kind of milk in America. In California and Georgia, raw milk was
formerly available in health food stores. Intense harassment by state sanitation authorities has
all but driven raw milk from the market in these states, in spite of the fact that it is technically
legal. Even when available, this milk suffers from the same drawbacks as most supermarket
milk -- it comes from freak-pituitary cows, often raised in crowded barns on inappropriate
feed. In some states you can buy raw milk at the farm. If you can find a farmer who will sell
you raw milk from old fashioned Jersey or Guernsey cows, allowed to feed on fresh
pasturage, then by all means avail yourself of this source. Some stores now carry pasteurized,
but not homogenized, milk from cows raised on natural feed. Such milk may be used to make
cultured milk products such as kefir, yoghurt, cultured buttermilk and cultured cream.
Traditionally cultured buttermilk, which is low in casein but high in lactic acid, is often well
tolerated by those with milk allergies, and gives excellent results when used to soak whole
grain flours for baking. If you cannot find good quality raw milk, you should limit your
consumption of milk products to cultured milk, cultured buttermilk, whole milk yoghurt,
butter, cream and raw cheeses. Raw cheese is available in all states.
Much imported cheese is raw -- look for the words "milk" or "fresh milk" on the label -- and
of very high quality.

Reprinted from Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct
Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats.

Page 2 of 2; EXHIBIT I

REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 57 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz
Raymond A. Novell
671 West Arrow Highway
Claremont, California 19711
June 12, 1998
Los Angeles County Medical Milk Commission
2525 Corporate Place, Suite 150
Monterey Park, CA 91754
RE: Commission's Duties
Food and Agriculture Code §35921 - §35928
Dear Commissioners:
At the meeting of the Los Angeles County Medical Milk Commission
(hereinafter "Commission") on June 3, 1998 1 was shocked and dismayed
to'-hear the outright proclamation by John Leedom, M.D., one of the
commissioners, that it was his intention and goal to ban certified raw milk.
The duty of the Commission imposed by State law is to certify
milk, not ban it!
A county milk commission shall certify milk, including
unpasteurized milk, for any applicant for certification
whose milk complies with the rules, regulations, and
standards for production, distribution and sale of milk
adopted by the commission and prescribed in this
code..." (F & A §35925)
The availability of certified raw milk and certified raw milk products are
not to be limited or restricted if they meet certain standards.
Banning of certified raw milk and certified raw milk products is not the
charge of the Commission and any commissioner attempting to do so is in
violation of state law.
The Legislature finds and declares that the state does
not intend to limit or restrict the availability of certified
raw milk and certified raw milk products to those
persons desiring to consume such milk and such
products, provided such milk and products meet
standards of sanitation and wholesomeness at least
equal to market milk that is grade A raw milk, as defined
in Section 35891. (F & A Code §35928(f)
Enclosed, for your convenience find, Exhibit "A", a copy of the Food and
Agriculture
Code Article 7 CERTIFIED MILK.

EXHIBIT J


REPORT IN FAVOR OF NATURAL MILK - 6/27/2007 - page 58 of 58
© 2007 Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.