... according to who? Your imagination again? You seem to not bother even reading any evidence to the contrary, so apparently I'm just wasting my breath. One last post:

Quote Originally Posted by the CDC
Raw milk is a well-documented source of infections from Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Listeria, Mycobacterium bovis, and other pathogens (2--6). In 1938, before widespread adoption of milk pasteurization in the United States, an estimated 25% of all foodborne and waterborne outbreaks of disease were associated with milk (7). By 2001, the percentage of such outbreaks associated with milk was estimated at <1% (7). During 1998--2005, a total of 45 outbreaks of foodborne illness were reported to CDC in which unpasteurized milk (or cheese suspected to have been made from unpasteurized milk) was implicated. These outbreaks accounted for 1,007 illnesses, 104 hospitalizations, and two deaths (CDC, unpublished data, 2007). Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with unpasteurized milk likely is greater.
Quote Originally Posted by WHO
As an illustrative example of the importance of pasteurization, milk-borne almonellosis was a particular health problem in Scotland during the period from 1970 to 1982 when more than 3500 people fell ill and 12 died. After the introduction of milk pasteurization in Scotland in 1983, milk-borne salmonellosis virtually disappeared and can now only be found among those in the farming community who continue to drink raw milk.
Quote Originally Posted by SBM
My patient was a victim of a recent outbreak in Pennsylvania, but similar outbreaks of infectious disease due to unpasteurized milk products are a recurring headache for public health officials. Between 1973 and 1993 there was an average of 2.3 milk born disease outbreaks per year. That number increased to 5.2 per year between 1993 and 2006. Whatever the numbers are, there is no question that the increasing consumption of raw milk is a genuine threat to public health.
Quote Originally Posted by U Chicago Journal of Clinical Infectious Disease
Since 2005, several outbreaks of disease, including salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis, and E. coli O157:H7 infection, that were related to consumption of unpasteurized milk or dairy products have been reported. During the end of 2005, 18 cases of infection with E. coli O157:H7, mostly among children aged <14 years, occurred in Oregon and Washington states. Five patients, aged 1–13 years, were hospitalized, 4 with hemolytic uremic syndrome. Laboratory and risk factor analyses linked the cases to raw milk from a dairy participating in a cow‐share program in Washington [38]. In 2007, 29 cases of S. enterica serotype Typhimurium infection were associated with consumption of raw milk or raw‐milk products in Pennsylvania. A S. typhimurium strain isolated from a dairy selling raw milk to consumers at the farm matched the outbreak strain isolated from the case patients by PFGE. Sixteen of the 29 case patients were aged <7 years [39]. At least 87 people became ill in Kansas in 2 separate outbreaks of campylobacteriosis during the end of 2007. In both outbreaks, illness was associated with consumption of raw milk or raw‐milk products [40]. In 2008, an outbreak of campylobacteriosis in California was associated with consumption of unpasteurized milk supplied from a farm operating a cow‐share program.
No, raw milk will not kill everyone that drinks it. It won't even make everyone sick. But over decades of observation it has been causally linked with potentially dangerous bacteria which can be severely harmful, and continue to actually seriously harm and even kill people today. Based on your bizarre application of "unsafe," the flu isn't particularly unsafe either, since it just makes the vast majority of people in the developed world uncomfortable for a few days.

I'm not sure if you just really, really want raw milk to be ok or you just hate anything scientists say. Your conclusions range from baseless to demonstrably wrong.