1

According to this claim by realmilk.com,

THE MILK CURE: In the early 1900s, the Mayo Clinic administered the “Milk Cure,” which consisted in drinking 4-5 quarts of raw milk per day, obtaining favorable results for a range of illnesses including cancer, weight loss, kidney disease, allergies, skin problems, urinary tract problems, prostate problems and chronic fatigue; these results are not obtained using pasteurized milk.

What kind of findings were discovered by Mayo Clinic's experiments on raw milk (pre-pasteurization), and did any of them survive peer review?

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
Evan Carroll
  • 28,401
  • 42
  • 129
  • 239
  • Here’s the article: https://books.google.com/books?id=P9MwAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA4-PA95&lpg=RA4-PA95 – Laurel Jan 06 '19 at 00:07
  • 1
    I'll note that the site `mayoclinic.org` contains no references to "milk cure", according to Google. – Daniel R Hicks Jan 06 '19 at 00:53
  • Related: [Is drinking raw milk more dangerous than drinking pasteurized milk?](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/6574/11643) –  Jan 06 '19 at 01:43
  • 4
    The early 1900s? Do you want to ask about phlogiston while you're at it? – Andrew Grimm Jan 06 '19 at 01:51
  • @AndrewGrimm SCIENCE NEVER EXPIRES. – Evan Carroll Jan 06 '19 at 04:30
  • @EvanCarroll Unlike raw milk. BTW, their own website, on their page about "[the milk cure](http://www.realmilk.com/health/milk-cure/)" (I usually avoid scare quotes, but I will make an exception here), says in the first paragraph that the Mayo clinic no longer uses that treatment. – Andrew Grimm Jan 06 '19 at 06:00
  • @Oddthinking why was the tag "quotes" added? What is the quote in question? – Andrew Grimm Jan 06 '19 at 06:03
  • 2
    @AndrewGrimm: The quotes tag has a synonym of "attribution". The question here is NOT really one of nutrition (is 4L of raw milk healthy?) but one of attribution (did the Mayo clinic *say* 100 years ago 4L of raw milk is healthy?) That seemed to be the best tag. – Oddthinking Jan 06 '19 at 07:01
  • I am skeptical that at any point in time the Mayo clinic was engaged in such wack science. – Evan Carroll Jan 06 '19 at 07:06
  • 4
    "Peer review" and "early 1900s" don't mix. While snake oil and miasma theory were on their way out in the early 1900s, dubious practices such as chiropractic (originated in 1895) and osteopathy (1874) were all the rage. The late 1800s / early 1900s was when modern medicine started. – David Hammen Jan 06 '19 at 14:13
  • I don't feel that the claim matches the body. Administrating a substance in a high dosis in a clinical setting is not the same is recommending that the substance should be consumed in that high dosis in normal life. – Christian Jan 08 '19 at 10:47
  • @Laurel no, they mean a different article 4 years later by the same author in the journal "Certified Milk". https://www.worldcat.org/title/certified-milk/oclc/820705815&referer=brief_results – DavePhD Jan 08 '19 at 13:36

0 Answers0