Taxpayer dollars set to fund Oxford research over the link between milk and racism?!



Yes, you read that right. Milk is apparently racist, and we need taxpayer dollars to prove it.

Pat Gray and the “Unleashed” panel discuss how a team of academics at an Oxford museum plan to conduct research over milk’s link to colonialism, which will be funded by taxpaying U.K. citizens who surely will be thrilled to contribute to such a noble cause.

“An Oxford museum will research the political nature of milk and its colonial legacies. One of the experts involved has previously argued that milk is a Northern European obsession; it's been imposed on other parts of the world,” reads Pat.

“[Dr. Johanna Zetterstrom-Sharp] said the assumption that milk was a key part of the human diet may be understood as a white supremacist one, as many populations outside Europe and North America have high levels of lactose intolerance in adulthood.”

It's Time We Talk About the Link Between Milk and Colonialismyoutu.be

The museum has announced that “it had received the funding,” but “the size of the grant has not yet been revealed.”

“The museum said by focusing on communities intersecting industry aid and government regulation, the project aims to center on heritage as a vital framework for understanding how colonial legacies influence contemporary issues that affect people's lives.”

Who knew milk was considered a contemporary issue?

“I am so pissed off at Borden right now. I am just so angry at their part in keeping people down,” says Pat sarcastically.

But in all seriousness, thank goodness “it's happening in Britain and not here.”

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Blaze News investigates: The truth about raw milk the government doesn't want you to know: 'Close to a perfect food'



Lisa Bass is a raw milk evangelist.

"When you look at all of the data, and you look at what is a health-supporting decision to make, I think raw milk comes out on top," Bass told Blaze News.

Bass, a mother of eight who is known for her popular YouTube channel "Farmhouse on Boone" and blog about homemaking, is part of a growing movement of free thinkers eschewing processed milk and embracing the benefits of raw dairy.

"I think we are created by God, and there is a way everything was designed," Bass said. "And if you take certain aspects of the food away, of course there's going to be other ramifications and other ways it wouldn't be as healthful. It's close to a perfect food. It's whole and good."

Unfortunately, the potential benefits of raw dairy are a secret to most Americans. That’s because the federal government and dairy lobbyists warn that raw milk is inherently dangerous, and they claim that consuming raw milk and raw dairy products can lead to severe illness — or even death. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in fact, describes raw milk as “one of the riskiest foods."

But is that true?

As it turns out, the government, dairy lobby, and the so-called “experts” are not telling you the full story.

The anti-raw-milk narrative

According to the CDC and Food and Drug Administration, raw milk and raw dairy products are unsafe to consume no matter what.

The public health agencies warn that raw dairy contains "disease-causing pathogens" that, if consumed, can send you to the hospital with severe illnesses and, if you're pregnant, may cause miscarriage or lead to stillbirths. In the worst cases, people who consume raw dairy may die.

The CDC and FDA, moreover, claim there are zero health benefits associated with consuming raw dairy. The FDA has even published an extensive document to debunk what it claims are the the "myths" associated with consuming raw dairy, asserting that every purported benefit is false. The science is unequivocally on their side, these agencies claim.

The dairy lobby is no different.

The National Dairy Producers Federation, one of the oldest and most powerful dairy advocacy groups, strongly opposes raw dairy and efforts to legalize it. Earlier this year, the NDPF suggested the raw dairy movement is akin to the "anti-vaccination movement."

That narrative is tidy and convenient. And it's true, after all, that pasteurization — the process of rapidly heating and cooling a liquid to kill all bacteria in it — helped solve a serious problem a century ago: People who lived in cities wanted to share in the benefits of consuming dairy products. But problems with urban sanitation, commercial agriculture, and the inability to refrigerate dairy led to many outbreaks of foodborne illnesses. Pasteurization, then, proved to be the right solution for a unique problem in time.

"It's a 19th-century problem, and pasteurization is a 19th-century solution," Mark McAfee, owner of Raw Farms USA in California — the largest raw dairy farm in the world — told Blaze News.

What they aren't telling you

As a general rule, absolutes are (almost) never true, and that is the case with raw milk. To claim that raw dairy is only harmful and there are no benefits to consuming it is a clue the government, dairy lobby, and so-called "experts" are not being honest with you.

Dr. Paul Saladino, MD, is a health influencer best known for promoting a holistic understanding of medicine and an ancestrally consistent diet, and he believes raw milk is a superfood.

In his educational content, Saladino teaches that consuming raw milk improves gut health, allergies, and immune function, and he has the scientific literature to back his claims.

"Raw milk contains many naturally occurring bioactive components that are beneficial and protective and prevent it from becoming a pathogenic breeding ground, things like lactoperoxidase immune cells, like neutrophil macrophages and immunoglobulins, which are antibodies. All of these are contained in raw milk. It is a bioactive-alive fluid," Saladino explains in a YouTube video.

The problem with pasteurization, then, is obvious in Saladino's view: Not only does pasteurization kill the "bad" things in raw dairy, but it also kills, reduces, denatures, or inhibits the benefits of raw dairy.

In Saladino's view, raw dairy has received a "bad rap" because of outbreaks of foodborne illness involving raw dairy more a century ago. But that was a unique problem in time, he argues, because cows were being milked in "very unsanitary conditions" and were being fed "complete garbage."

Metabolically unhealthy animals and unsanitary conditions were the perfect recipe for bacteria growth.

But advances in sanitation, technology, and understanding of human health now render raw milk "inherently safe" for all humans, according to Saladino — as long as farmers harvesting it uphold high quality and sanitation standards.

McAfee says that's exactly what Raw Farms USA does. According to McAfee, his family-owned farm has perfected the art of safely harvesting raw dairy and making it a product for consumers.

Raw Farms USA's cows are happy and clean, and the farm abides by "extremely strict standards" that McAfee told Blaze News surpass the standards of pasteurized dairy.

It's important to consider four more important facts about raw dairy.

First, humans have been drinking mammalian milk for thousands of years, and we haven't been stingy about our sources, harvesting from cows, sheep, goats, camels, horses, deer, buffalo, and other mammals. And for the vast majority of human history, this milk was consumed unpasteurized without problem.

We should consider, then, whether raw milk itself is the problem — as the anti-raw-milk narrative argues — or if something humans do makes raw milk sometimes risky to consume.

Second, the government's narrative about human breast milk is completely different from its narrative about raw dairy. Not only does the government recommend that infants be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life, but officials acknowledge that breast milk has "unique properties" that protect young children.

Breast milk, obviously, is neither pasteurized nor sterile, nor are human breasts sterile.

Considering that breast milk is raw milk harvested in a non-sterile environment — just like other mammalian milk — the natural question arises: Why is raw breast milk best, but other raw dairy is unsafe under every circumstance?

"They talk out of both sides of their mouth," McAfee told Blaze News, citing scientists who have found that raw dairy milk and breast milk, while quantitatively different, are "practically identical" qualitatively.

"You compare cow's milk to breast milk — it's practically identical on kinds of proteins, the kinds of fats, but the amounts are different. That's why there's so much compatibility between humans and cows," he said.

"We're a match made in heaven in terms of being able to have a portable, whole food nutrition from cows to people," McAfee explained. "Breastfeeding is the tell."

Third, the government emphasizes the dangers of raw milk and points to foodborne illness outbreaks as evidence. What officials never include alongside data about alleged raw-milk outbreaks is data about outbreaks involving pasteurized dairy.

A recent systematic review analyzing dairy outbreaks in the U.S. and Canada between 2007 and 2020, indeed, had interesting results. It found:

Thirty-two disease outbreaks were linked to dairy consumption. Twenty outbreaks involving unpasteurized products resulted in 449 confirmed cases of illness, 124 hospitalizations, and five deaths. Twelve outbreaks involving pasteurized products resulted in 174 confirmed cases of illness, 134 hospitalizations, 17 deaths, and seven fetal losses.

That's right: More deaths associated with outbreaks connected to pasteurized dairy than to raw dairy.

Statistically speaking, the data can't be compared directly because most people in the U.S. and Canada consume pasteurized dairy, and thus deaths from unpasteurized dairy are a much smaller percentage of overall consumers.

But the point to remember is this: There is risk associated with consuming both raw dairy and pasteurized dairy — just as there is risk with almost everything in life.

"Every food has risks. There are outbreaks with greens, fruit — there is no food without risk. Even pasteurized milk," Bass told Blaze News. "We think that there is a way to live a risk-free life, but there's always risk.

"There's no risk-free choice," she said.

Unfortunately, the government and the "experts" only emphasize the risk and potential harmful consequences of raw dairy while ignoring altogether the potential risks of pasteurized dairy, which is why the FDA has officially prohibited the interstate commerce of raw dairy since 1987.

Finally, there is a difference between raw milk harvested specifically for human consumption and the pasteurized milk that ends up on most grocery store shelves.

"It's filthy milk, I wouldn't produce it ever, and guess what? You need to pasteurize it because it's going to make somebody sick," McAfee said of pasteurized milk.

"That's what the FDA, in their minds, in their reality, thinks is raw milk," he explained. "What you have is two paradigms that are true at the same time: My milk is safe without pathogens because I set up the conditions for that, I test for it, and I'm preparing for human consumption — not pasteurization. Their paradigm is correct because their definition of raw milk is that it's filthy.

"You have two different realities, two different structures, two different protocols, two different standards and practices," McAfee said. "They're rendering filthy milk 'safe,' but it's not really safe. It's highly allergenic and hard to digest. So what they've got is a filthy milk problem that they're fixing with pasteurization that's killing all of the bio-actives that consumers want."

In fact, McAfee said most dairy farms have no incentives to produce raw milk for human consumption.

"It's not their fault. Their milk design is to have pathogens, their [design] is to put as much milk as they can into the channel — they're being paid by the weight of the milk, not the bacterial standards," McAfee said.

Should you consider raw milk?

Bass told Blaze News that she transitioned her family to raw dairy when her first child was in the weaning process. She did her research, became confident about the benefits of raw dairy, and "never looked back."

Bass has a humble spirit. She doesn't want to push her view on others, and she doesn't want to engage in the politics of the issue.

But if you consider drinking raw dairy, Bass wants you to know that you're more than capable of understanding the issue — despite what "experts" may claim — and that you are the best advocate for yourself and your family.

"Get some hard facts, not just fearmongering; get some real data and statistics, and you're going to find there have been sicknesses and deaths from both [raw dairy and pasteurized dairy]," she said. "But, either way, it's extremely low."

That skill — questioning with boldness the narrative that is pushed on you — translates to many areas of life.

"When you take a look at the actual numbers and you look at the actual studies, you'll find that a lot of times the narrative can be questioned, and there are a lot of benefits to learning things yourself and not just trusting what is told to you," Bass said. "I encourage people to be that advocate for themselves."

"It's important to ask questions because we live in this culture where it [is] always whatever the experts say," she explained. "I see what the experts say — there's a lot of fearmongering with a lot of, 'This will happen to you. This is scary.' And then when you actually look at the statistics, you're like, 'Oh, that's not at all what I was expecting.'"

If you ask Saladino, he will tell you that you should considering drinking raw milk not only because it's beneficial for your health and is ancestrally consistent, but it's just plain tasty.

"Raw milk is delicious!" Saladino says.

McAfee agrees.

"If you poll people about why they drink raw milk, the No. 1 thing they're going to say: It's delicious! 'It tastes good. It settles in my belly. It feels good. It makes me feel good,'" McAfee explained.

No matter what choice you make, remember to question with boldness, seek the truth, and cultivate the health of your family.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Transgender Ideologues Perform Dangerous Experiments On Babies With Male ‘Chestfeeding’

Allowing babies to be experimented on with male lactation and putting them at a disadvantage at the beginning of their lives is an injustice.

Unhinged Health ‘Experts’ Claim Men Can Breastfeed Too

With off-label drugs, men are still only able to produce a tiny amount of nutritionally inappropriate breast secretions that have unknown properties.

Senators Propose Bipartisan Bill To Keep Lab-Grown Meat Off The School Lunch Menu

A pair of bipartisan senators proposed legislation last week to keep lab-grown meat out of the school cafeteria.

Senate Democrats Block Bill To Allow Whole Milk In School Lunch Programs

Maybe Republicans should have slipped the milk measure into the NDAA just as they did with the reauthorization of warrantless surveillance.

Newsom and other leftists enraged after school board president said Harvey Milk was a 'pedophile'



The president of the Temecula school board in California has drawn the ire of leftists, including Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, for having dared to point out an iconic gay activist's documented appetite for boys.

The Temecula Valley Unified District governing board convened on May 16 to debate the adoption of a new social studies curriculum for its elementary schools.

Dr. Joseph Komrosky, TVUSD president, and board members Jennifer Wiersma and Danny Gonzalez, signaled their opposition to elements of the propagandizing curriculum recently piloted by teachers in the district and approved by the California Department of Education, reported KABC-TV.

The trio, backed in their election to the board last year by the conservative Inland Empire Family PAC, voted 3-2 against the implementation of the curriculum, citing a lack of parental input and the presence of inappropriate content.

"I don't want my 3rd grader studying an LGBTQ issue. I don't want them going into gender ideology," said Wiersma, adding, "Parents need to be involved. ... With something as important as history, we need to take another look."

After Gonzalez alerted the board to writ concerning a pedophilic activist in the course materials, Dr. Komorosky asked for clarification.

Board member Allison Barclay preempted Gonzalez's response, stating, "There is a lesson on Harvey Milk in the curriculum."

After Barclay's telling interruption, Gonzalez specified that the proposed fourth-grade materials included biographic detail and a photo of Harvey Milk, adding he found it to be "wildly inappropriate based on [Milk's] lifestyle choices and some of the things he was involved in outside of his political career."

When an advocate for the curriculum explained to the board that the Harvey Milk materials to be impressed on children were supplemental, not in the new textbook, Dr. Komrosky replied, "My question is why even mention a pedophile?"

The suggestion that Milk was a pedophile, confirmed by the activist's biographer Randy Shilts in "The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk," immediately caused a stir.

Barclay fired back, "He's not a pedophile."

Dr. Komrosky said, "I beg to differ," stressing the invocation of Milk in the curriculum "is a form of activism."

Barclay continued defending the inclusion of Milk in the student-facing materials, recommending that Komrosky read the activist's biography.

"You might have a different impression of the definition of pedophilia," said Barclay.

Shilts revealed in his biography of Milk that the politician, whose early campaign was funded by the notorious cultist Jim Jones of the Jonestown Massacre, "had a proclivity for male minors, who included 16-year-old Jack Galen McKinley. ... Milk would prime troubled, underage boys and young men with booze and drugs, then coerce them into sexual acts," reported the Federalist,

Shilts, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and close friend of Milk who died of AIDS in 1994, wrote, "Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him."

McKinley later committed suicide.

The age of consent in California is 18. The Daily Caller indicated that in light of California's current statutory rape law institute in 1970, having sex with a 16-year-old is statutory rape. It would appear, therefore that even if not a pedophile by Barclay's preferred definition, Milk may have been both a statutory rapist and a pederast.

Advocate, an LGBT magazine, accused Dr. Komrosky of "falsely" asserting that Milk was a sexual predator.

The One Temecula Valley PAC is doubling-down on their push for Dr. Komrosky, Gonzalez, and Wiersma to resign, having pursued that end since the conservatives' election, reported the Guardian.

Newsom — who recently ratified law enabling judges to keep men who prey on grade schoolers 10 years their junior, between the ages of 14 and 17, off sex-offender registries — responded to Dr. Komrosky on Twitter, writing, "An offensive statement from an ignorant person. This isn't Texas or Florida. In the Golden State, our kids have the freedom to learn. Congrats Mr. Komorsky you have our attention. Stay tuned."

Neither Dr. Komrosky nor Gonzalez were shaken by Newsom's threat. They both fired back Wednesday on the conservative podcast "Our Watch with Tim Thompson."

Dr. Komrosky suggested the governor "should have learned more about the exploitation of young children during the #MeToo movement to help ... avoid celebrating pederasts and those who would steal our children's virtue."

"Gov. Newsom, I’m glad that I have your attention. Now you have mine," added Dr. Komrosky. "I received my first death threat after your tweet and relentless attacks on my job as a well-standing tenured professor. ... My remarks about Mr. Milk were not based on him being a homosexual, but rather based upon him being an adult having a sexual relationship with a minor," said the board president.

Concerning the board's decision not to adopt the new curriculum, the TVUSD stated:

The district is currently extending the window for viewing and feedback on textbook materials that were piloted and recommended by our teachers. We will continue to gather additional community and parent feedback for the board. At this time, we are not looking at changes with the publisher since TCI is a CDE approved curriculum that complies with the FAIR Act. TCI is also our approved Social Studies textbook at the middle school level. We are working with TCI and our pilot teachers to provide additional parent/community nights to share the materials again and provide an opportunity for additional questions. We want to ensure that parents and community members have as much information as possible and are able to provide even more feedback.

May 16, 2023, 6:00 PM - Open Session - TVUSD Governing Board Meeting youtu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republicans In The Swamp Should Take On The Real Culture Wars, Not Biden’s ‘War On Chocolate Milk’

If Republicans really want to fight the culture war, they should take on major food industries making us sick.

Nearly 30 civil rights and health groups urge USDA to combat 'dietary racism' by including soy milk options in public school lunches



Nearly 30 self-described civil rights and health groups have written a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture asking it to combat "dietary racism" by including soy milk as an alternative to cow milk in its National School Lunch Program.

The letter claims that "fluid milk" from cows, which the USDA considers a vital component of "wholesome meals," is not a viable option for many black, Hispanic, and Native American school children who experience lactose intolerance at much higher rates than whites.

“If Black lives matter, so does our health and nutrition, but the National School Lunch Program has consistently failed children of color,” said Milton Mills, a Washington, D.C., urgent care physician. “Either schoolchildren drink the milk they’re given and suffer in class while they’re trying to learn, or they go without a nutritionally significant portion of their meal.”

The group Switch4Good, which signed the letter and with which Mills is affiliated, calls privileging cow milk over soy milk an example of "dietary racism." On its website, Switch4Good claims that anywhere from 70 to 95% of minority students are lactose intolerant, compared to just 15% of whites. Therefore, by focusing only on cow milk and ignoring the alternatives, "the lactose-persistent white majority is making nutritional decisions for the entire population without taking into account the harmful effects dairy has on BIPOC communities. This is dietary racism."

In addition to the lactose problem, the letter to the USDA also takes issue with the hoops that students must jump through in order to receive a cow-milk alternative at lunch. The USDA does compel schools to collect a note from a parent or guardian whenever a student requests a cow-milk alternative. It also states that a note from a medical professional "may be used to support a fluid milk substitution for a non-disability reason," though such a note "is not required."

"It is patently discriminatory to require a doctor’s note for a nearly ubiquitous condition,” the letter states. “Black, Native American, Asian and Latino kids are being punished for their race and heritage.”

According to The Hill, 30 million school children depend on the NSLP. The letter signees further claim that a disproportionate number of those students are racial minorities.

"It is hard to imagine a more inequitable and socially unjust USDA practice than the force feeding of milk to [minority] children in our schools,” the letter continues.

“Until children of color are properly provided for in the USDA-funded NSLP, the ‘And Justice for All’ posters that the agency requires participating public schools to display in their lunch rooms is simply empty rhetoric as injustices are visited on millions of underserved children each day,” it adds.

Other groups which signed the letter include Progressive Democrats of America, the Maryland chapter of the NAACP, the Center for a Humane Economy, and the National Action Network Washington Bureau, which was founded by the Rev. Al Sharpton in 1991.