It was a purely appalling piece, (watch it here) containing red flags for pseudoscience at every turn. Run as the lead story (making it appear to be important) it was peppered with testimonials, anecdotes and some very dodgy looking science.

I thought I must have stood on the remote and switched over to A Current Affair or Today Tonight when they showed footage of a woman saying switching from regular milk cured her hives and deep tissue swelling in only four weeks.

Then there was the story of the farmer’s daughter who was cured from diarrhea and vomiting overnight (or somesuch) after switching to magic milk.

Of note, scant evidence for regular milk causing these conditions was presented, or maybe I blinked and missed it. Instead there were statements about countries where more regular milk is consumed displaying higher levels of obesity and other diseases, but correlation does not equal causation. And these studies need to be interpreted with caution.

“They had someone who had a kid with eczema and the eczema had gone away, someone who didn’t get migraines anymore, someone who didn’t get stomach upsets anymore – those types of issues. All the stories can’t be wrong. I just believe there’s got to be something in it.”

So what is this magic milk of which they speak?

Cows give one of three types of milk. There’s milk with A1 casein (a type of protein), milk with A2 and some cows give milk with a combination of both. A theory, which apparently started in New Zealand in 2000, is that A2 milk is much better for your health than A1 milk.

The type of protein a cow produces depends on genetics, so A2 cows must be bred.

But what is even more interesting when I was researching this story I found out this is not the first time the A2 milk story has been covered by the ABC.

After the theory was first proposed in the year 2000 in New Zealand, the ABC covered it on Four Corners in 2003 and then on Landline in 2006.

The transcripts are available on-line and appear to be quite similar.

Just look at this for an example.

Four Corners, First Published 31/03/2003. Reporter Ticky Fullerton:

Nevertheless, a possible mechanism for how A1 milk might cause disease was now proposed. Protein molecules of A1 and A2 milk are both chains of amino acids. But in the A1 molecule, one amino acid is different, a weak link. A2 researchers believe this causes the chain to break, creating a small piece called Beta Casomorphin 7. And this piece is able move through the gut wall, into the blood, triggering disease.

Landline First Published: 06/08/2006. Reporter Pip Courtney:

A possible mechanism for how A1 milk might cause disease was now proposed. Protein molecules of A1 and A2 milk are both chains of amino acids, but in the A1 molecule, one amino acid is different – a weak link. A2 researchers believe this causes the chain to break creating a small piece called Beta Casomorphin 7 and this piece is able to move through the gut wall into the blood, triggering disease.

7:30 Report, 07/04/2010 (attributed to Four Corners 2003)

They claim that trigger is found in a weak link in A1 milks chain of amino acids causing the chain to break and creating a small piece called BCM7. They say that piece moves through the gut wall into the blood stream causing disease

But being that today’s date is 07/04/2010, it seems this story might be on a cycle of every 3 – 4 years. Slow news day 7:30 Report?

Here are some more similarities:

Four Corners, First Published 31/03/2003. Reporter Ticky Fullerton:

Milk has long been blamed for health problems – heart disease, diabetes and even autism. But in the new hypothesis, it’s not fats or sugar but protein, something you can’t even taste, under the microscope. A2 milk’s backers claim A1 triggers these diseases.

Landline First Published: 06/08/2006. Reporter Pip Courtney:

Milk has long been blamed for health problems – heart disease, diabetes and even autism. But in the new hypothesis, it’s not fats or sugar but protein, something you can’t even taste, under the microscope. A2 milk’s backers claim A1 triggers these diseases.

Oh Aunty, really?

And they even spoke to many of the same people.

Landline First Published: 06/08/2006. Reporter Pip Courtney:

Well, in 2004, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority asked Professor Boyd Swinburn from Deakin University to evaluate the research.

Four Corners, First Published 31/03/2003. Reporter Ticky Fullerton:

PROFESSOR BOYD SWINBURN, SCHOOL OF HEALTH SCIENCES, DEAKIN UNIVERISTY

After re-watching tonight’s story on-line, I’m not sure what prompted them to run it again. You might guess some significant new scientific breakthroughs, or advances in the understanding of how regular milk might cause such diseases. But sadly no.

I only saw one piece of new science in this version of the story, a paper from Russian researchers claiming developmental delays in babies fed A1 formula, which correlated with high levels of circulating BCM7.

But Professor Peter Clifton had this to say;

“I’ve certainly read that paper and I don’t think it’s groundbreaking and significant. In fact, if I had been editing that journal I wouldn’t have accepted that paper for many many reasons, essentially I don’t think they’ve actually measured what they claim to measure”.

There’s more

Landline First Published: 06/08/2006. Reporter Pip Courtney:

In 2004, the Queensland Health Department fined A2 milk marketers $15,000 for making false and misleading claims about the health benefits of A2 milk. Dairy Australia says the company broke the rules.

7:30 Report, 07/04/2010

It’s wary about the way it promotes the product. Mindful that back in 2004 another A2 milk marketer was convicted of making false and misleading health claims.

And finally:

Four Corners, First Published 31/03/2003. Reporter Ticky Fullerton:

TICKY FULLERTON: Just how plausible do you think it is that one factor, a protein in A1 milk, could contribute to diabetes, heart disease, autism and schizophrenia?

7:30 Report, 07/04/2010

Reporter Lisa Whitehead: Why don’t you go as far as claiming that A1 milk can cause heart disease, juvenile diabetes, even autism

The answer was a piece of unsubstantiated scaremongering from an A2 supporter:

“We’ve really left that topic to the scientists to talk about, there are many eminent scientists who would support that. Ummm, we would certainly say that yes, there’s some evidence, we don’t certainly talk avidly about that evidence but we believe yes consumers should make up their own minds about that.”

A2 milk is big business and much money can be made if either side can convince consumers that their milk is healthy and the other causes autism. I know, I’ve seen the reports detailing the ins-and-outs three times now (go read the transcripts if you want to know more). But this debate is really about the politics, and the money, not the science.

Well done to the 7:30 Report for contributing to the scaremongering by A2 producers and potentially lining their pockets, for the third time, along the way.

What a disgrace ABC.

Reports say she felt faint, passed out at school, and was unable to be revived by paramedics. Autopsy results released this week, reveal that she died from a malignant tumour, meaning the cause of death was unrelated to the vaccine.

Never mind that these are the facts being presented to us, the anti-vax lobby have latched onto this death as evidence that the HPV vaccine kills. They have even gone so far as to  call the autopsy report fake and the pathologist who conducted the autopsy a liar.

This from NaturalNews dot com.

–

Today, the mainstream media is reporting an obviously-fabricated explanation for her death. A pathologist is declaring that Natalie died from a “malignant chest tumor” that just coincidentally and suddenly killed her within hours after she received the cervical cancer vaccine.

–

The opinion piece, written by Mike Adams, goes onto suggest that the explanation is purely a cover up to protect the billion dollar vaccine industry.

He continues;

–
The continuation of global cervical cancer vaccination programs — which generate billions in profits — absolutely required blaming Natalie’s death on something other than the vaccine. Blaming it on cancer is very easy to do, since every person living today has cancerous micro-tumors in their body right now. All the pathologist had to do was locate such a micro-tumor in Natalie’s body, then dismiss the vaccine altogether.
–

As a lawyer friend of mine pointed out, these statements constitute serious defamation against the pathologist, in particular this statement;

“But why would a pathologist cover up the true cause of Natalie Morton’s death?..”.

And then this statement about the executives of the vaccine manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline;

“It takes a real cold-hearted CEO to watch your product potentially kill a 14-year-old girl in mere hours and then continue to recommend that same product to millions more”.

Then, in an even more preposterous link, the author suggests a statement by a GSK spokesperson which says “GSK’s deepest sympathies lie with the parents at this very sad time” is merely a Freudian slip since it contains the word “parents” and “lie”.

Good grief.

The editors of Natural News would be wise to fact check their stories and ensure they are not putting themselves at risk of defamation suits by allowing their contributors to make such accusations. Mind you, they don’t have a reputation for fact checking before publishing stories, as is evidenced by their recent publication about an alleged lawsuit challenging compulsory vaccination in the USA, which turned out to be a hoax. The retraction can be read here or is reproduced below.

“(NaturalNews) Editor’s Note: It has come to our attention that the following article is factually incorrect. It was written by a contributing writer, then approved by an in-house editor who did not catch the significant errors in this article. As a result of these significant errors, and due to our commitment to publishing only true and accurate information to the best of our ability, we have made an editorial decision to reject further articles from this author.

“NaturalNews deeply regrets this unintentional error, and we are brainstorming new ways to put in place tighter fact-checking oversight so that the same mistake does not happen again in the future. We thank all those who have brought this important matter to our attention, and we pledge to increase our efforts to reject stories that contain factual inaccuracies.

“For the record, what was factually incorrect about the story (which we confirmed by phone with a clerk of United States District Court of Trenton, New Jersey) is that no such injunction has been filed. Thus, the entire premise of the story was factually incorrect.

“Here at NaturalNews, we strive to bring you accurate, honest information on these topics, and we deeply regret the unintentional publishing of the inaccurate information that previously appeared in this article space.”

This also resulted in the AVN publishing and distributing an incorrect press release, which was never retracted, despite several people politely suggesting that this would be the right thing to do.

My mate even suggested that if the editors of Natural News have any money they might soon be separated from it.

One would expect, if you are accusing pharmaceutical companies of cover-up and fraud you might wanna check your own facts. Because one thing’s for sure, Big Pharma are certainly not lacking in money, legal muscle or time.