yep....him and Balance had a robust discussion......nothing untoward.... but Mr ST MOD got all bolshy and banned them....shame things get a bit flat without a little lively banter...i think mac is now talking to a few posters privately
Printable View
..."That doesn't mean the first clinical trial was inconclusive, just that the researchers want more detail. (Curtin human trials)..."That research will go on and on."..."It's true that there is no "definitive" evidence yet that BCM7 is a causal factor in type 1 diabetes and ischaemic heart disease, because that will require very difficult longitudinal human studies taking decades"
Sorry NT, I'm not personally disputing what you have said at all, I'm looking at it from a legal perspective. If you look at what I have taken from your comments above you can see that there still exists a level of research that needs to be undertaken before it can be definitively proven that A1 milk is detrimental to your health. If we were at that stage now, ATM 's SP would be well above where it is now and regular A1/A2 milk sales would be screwed. No one is arguing that there is no difference between A1 & A2 beta casein, what is still in question is can ATM scientifically prove beyond doubt that A2 milk has better health outcomes than regular milk.
Actually he has been banned from private posting as well. Tried today to do a private message but it could not be delivered.
Does anyone know if this is a suspension and if so for how long. Seems a bit harsh. In my experience MAC has been a sensible poster. If you cannot have a robust discussion, what's the point of being on the blog?
I have to agree with both of you. Perhaps A2MC should subject itself to a double blind placebo extensive clinical trial at Dunedin Hospital and Otago Uni and take a leaf out of the Promisia Integrative strategy to efficacy book. That company jumped that hurdle or so their recent announcement said. No harm in doing things properly if one believes in ones product.
Can't disagree with that Lola. Can't see that it can be that hard to get a group of people together who "believe" they are allergic or have some other reaction to regular milk, and run a clinical trial with regular and a2 milk over time. Those who also reacted to a2 milk could be tested for lactose intolerance.
Maybe too simplistic?
Thanks Harrie but I think it would be easier to prove this point in a court of law than to persuade the entrenched dairy industry and health/food safety bureaucracy who have a joint vested interest in not conceding that the dairy products currently being exported by NZ and Australia could carry health risks. Just look at the lengths of official dishonesty that both the Australian and NZ food safety authorities have gone to in order to suppress and misrepresent the findings of the Swinburn report.
As you say, the courts are interested in facts. The political bureaucracy is not, and a2MC cannot legally make claims that conflict with the position laid down by people like the NZ Food Safety Authority, that there is no food safety issue involved with A1 milk. It would be prosecuted for trying to do so.
If the scientific findings of the Swinburn report had been allowed to become the official position of the NZFSA which actually commissioned it more than a decade ago, it would have made a vast difference to a2MC's SP and market success.
That's also the reason a2MC goes through ridiculous contortions to distance itself from the dozens of research papers that have been published showing that there are certainly health risks associated with A1 milk. It publishes such papers on a special website that's hard to find and you have to accept a list of conditions if you want to read them, in order to protect a2MC from the wrath of the law put in place to protect the mainstream dairy industry.
Lola's suggestion for a larger trial is certainly a good one and I think that may be what a2MC has in mind. Probably not at OU or even in NZ, as there are too many critics who will say mates are involved. And who is to pay for this kind of research? Big trials cost big money. The Swinburn report a decade ago said more research was needed and the NZ government should support it. But the government and dairy industry weren't ever going to fund it for obvious reasons - they knew what the results would show. If a2MC funds it, it will be criticised like the Curtin trial, even though correct protocols were followed in that instance to ensure integrity. And even if funding can be found and such a trial is carried out, critics will still turn around and say "we still need more research". There's no easy answer.
We are on the same page NT, but its the legal system that will decide on whether there has been a breach of advertising standards. As you say the dairy industry and the country for that matter have a vested interest in preserving the integrity of their stance and will look to the health/food safety to provide evidence. Lies and half truths aside, legally that evidence will be a bit hard to discard as its an authority that has credibility and they will claim that there is no conclusive evidence that regular milk with the A1protein creates any health issues. Conversely it is then difficult to prove that a2 only milk has better health outcomes, despite anecdotal evidence or hearsay which is unlikely to be admitted as evidence. In the legal system, despite encouraging evidence to the contrary, then it must remain a fact that a2 milk cannot conclusively be held out to claim that its health benefits are superior to that of regular milk.
I know that all exposure is good exposure but I'm not sure that the risk of taking this to court with the possibility of failure is the right move by a2mc. The consequences of losing are too great, even though they may lose for the wrong reasons. The legal system rules on proven facts.
Its a tough rd alright --some years back Monsanto actually stopped a report about the damage that growth hormones and antibiotics caused that were found in the milk from the cows that were given these chemicals(it was cancer from memory).--I believe it talks about it in a documentary called ''the corporation''---pretty dark stuff.
Perhaps for now A2 will simply have to bring the good points to as many as possible rather than take on the big and powerful.
(Those with deep pockets will just play the continuous appeal game until their adversary runs out of money.)
Ive heard that JK has gone and signed the TPPA which is a sad day for all---(Details remain secret for 4 years)
This could go on and on. Let me just say I don't think the court will just accept the official FSA line as fact. Nor would the FSA or dairy industry want to front up with their scientific experts to be cross examined on it. They normally don't allow their experts to face public questioning on this issue - with reason. If it comes down to the scientific evidence, I'm sure a2MC will win. I would hopect the court will hear evidence/submissions as to the opposing scientific claims made by a2MC and the BS statements made in the programme, because that's what this is really about.
However, I suspect the ABC will try to minimise the scientific evidence, and try to make the case turn on legal technicalities rather than scientific fact. In which case a2MC doesn't have much to lose, reputationwise.