The company (a2MC) has been commissioning or contributing to studies including clinical trials in relation to A2, and would love it if some of their doubters such as Fonterra and Dairy Australia and the ABC and Parmalat and Lion would finance or at least contribute to such research themselves, but they don't. Can anyone guess why?
A report by a leading Australasian endocrinologist, Prof Boyd Swinburn, commissioned several years ago by the NZ Food Safety Authority, said in effect that the jury was still out at that time on the claims on behalf of A2 Milk, but they did have some credibility and could not be dismissed, and there was a need for further research in the interests of public health.
You'd think outfits like Fonterra who have rejected the A2 proposition and have big budgets and armies of high-powered scientific researchers at their disposal would have taken the opportunity to commission some research or do it themselves and present it publicly via reputable scientific journals, but their response has been zilch. They don't even engage in public discussion of the published scientific findings by independent researchers. They already know what the worldwide research is concluding. It's unanimously saying that the BCM7 peptide from A1 milk (but not A2) causes inflammatory damage within the gut and can spread through the bloodstream of some individuals into the brain, where it is implicated as a likely contributing cause of several significant human disease conditions as well as mere digestive discomfort.
Fonterra even took out a patent at one stage based on the belief that BCM7 from A1 milk is a cause of diabetes, but now claims this was based on erroneous science. All it needs to do is produce its revised argument on this to a peer-reviewed journal to have it examined by an independent panel, but it won't, so the original proposition still stands. There's only one scientist who publicly disputes that A1 is implicated in disease causation. That is Professor Stewart Truswell of Sydney, who was hired by the former NZ Dairy Board as an expert witness against the former A2 Corporation when the two parties were engaged in bitter litigation some years ago. His argument is based largely on citation of a clinical trial involving rats which was inconclusive but was later totally discredited because it emerged that the rats that were supposed to be fed a diet strictly devoid of A1 were in fact fed A1 by the Dairy Board's own research team.
If anyone on this forum is complaining that a2MC finds it necessary to finance research into the science surrounding A1 and A2, it's because the global dairy industry runs a mile and clams up when the subject gets raised. And universitie3s in Australia and NZ don't want to fund research that will show the two countries' dairy exports are contaminated by a potentially lethal peptide.
If anyone thinks a2MC, in the face of this refusal by others to undertake research into the subject, should just stand aside and do nothing, it would indeed be strange if they are holding A2M shares and expecting the company to do well. I am sure the company would love to hear from any A2M shareholder willing to fund some "independent" research. The results could of course be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal after being vetted by an independent panel of experts, as is the usual practice.
Expand
(20min delay)