Regardless, evidence shows that "pasteurization is a safe process which reduces the number of L. monocytogenes occurring in raw milk to levels that do not pose an appreciable risk to human health".

Raw milk not containing L. monocytogenes ---> safe product

Raw milk containing L. monocytogenes + pasteurization ---> safe product

Raw milk containing L. monocytogenes + NO pasteurization ---> unsafe, potentially fatal product

These two really are the question here, aren't they?

I'm sure it's clear that the first point I've quoted doesn't hold, since one of the four major outbreaks came from pasteurized milk.

I don't believe it's entirely clear whether the second point I've quote holds either.

My first quoted source, in the response to you, suggests that pasteurization doesn't help reduce milk-borne illnesses.

It also seems that your ignoring the negative impacts of pasteurization, like killing off the natural fauna living within milk. They actually act as a preservative, fighting off pathogens. It's the reason your pasteurized milk goes bad while raw milk undergoes a process, changing first into buttermilk, then into sour cream and finally into yoghurt.

Pasteurization kills many different types of pathogenic bacteria. This has been an established fact since 1862. If a pasteurized product contains harmful levels of pathogens normally killed by pasteurization, then either the pasteurization process was not effective (inadequate time and/or temperature) or the product was contaminated post-pasteurization.

As with practically everything in life, there are trade-offs: On the one hand, pasteurization kills pathogenic organisms, but on the other, it may destroy some enzymes, nutrients, and beneficial bacteria.

I believe that people should be informed about the benefits and risks of consuming both pasteurized and unpasteurized dairy products. Once informed, they should be free to assess the risks vs. benefits themselves, and make their own decisions.