Fresh milk is illegal and you cannot take milk from your own cow!
#21
...just another day at the office, Marty... :)
Reply
#22
I am so sorry to everyone who posted in the previous thread I deleted and to you, Vox, I truly didn't know we aren't allowed to delete our own posts but in my defense I only did it because I thought it was getting out of hand, I'm reading a book right now on backbiting and sins of the tongue and I don't want to be an occasion of sin. Also I just didn't like how agaddini was blacklisting all of the sources in favor of real milk just because he didn't like them or thought they weren't reputable as well as he flooded the thread. I felt that the way he was phrasing his posts was just to make people not even think about raw milk; he contradicted himself at least once by saying in so many words, first, that raw milk is just as good as heated but then in a later post said that pasteurization is necessary to stop quacks from harming people with back information. Which is it? Is raw milk harmless or is it harmless? Or is it (gasp) superior to heated denatured acidic milk?
 
I believe it's yes to the later and there's evidence for that but why even bother to tell anyone if they're like agaddini who just wouldn't study or even listen to the evidence. I simply suggested to agaddini to read one book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston Andrew Price, DDS but he just shot it down and ignored me. By the way argaddini I've read almost every one of your sources and they don't impress me at all, a simple 7 year-old could who has been showed the evidence in Dr. Price's book could debunk your sources. By the way my reasons for raw milk are not because of the enzymes in it which I do believe anyhow but because of the loss of the natural vitamins A and D during pasteurization. Natural sources rich in these vitamins have shown again and again that they are far superior than their synthetic counterfeits. In the 1930's the average American was already getting 10x times less A & D. What is our deficiency now?
 
EDITTED TO ADD: P.S. By the way, agaddini, the issue has gone to trial and in at least a handful of States the evidence in support of raw milk has won, granted I'm sure all the professionals (PhD's, MD's and other researchers) at those trials have a lot more evidence and peer-reviewed studies on the superiority of raw milk. Also I might add that pasteurization is usually around 240 something degrees nowadays.
Reply
#23
Catholicmilkman,

"he contradicted himself at least once by saying in so many words, first, that raw milk is just as good as heated but then in a later post said that pasteurization is necessary to stop quacks from harming people with back information. Which is it? Is raw milk harmless or is it harmless? Or is it (gasp) superior to heated denatured acidic milk?"

What is "back information?" Are you refering to backwards infomration? Are you refering to the outdated infomation you have such a proclivity for?

Where did I contradict myself? From the begining I said raw milk was fine if it was fresh. GO READ.

Secondly, I read enough of your soruces to discredit them and find better alternatives. You seem chalk the prestigious journals and soruces I cite (I guess Consumer Reports is not all that prestigious) to some sort of conspiracy.

If you did actually read current soruces, you would know that most milk labeled "pasturized" uses the HTST method which involves holding the milk at a temperature of 72 °C (161.5 °F) for at least 15 seconds. This is less "cooked" than almost any food you typically cook. Some milk is pasturzed more stongly or even double pasturized, other milk is pasturized less strongly and is really almost raw since milk comes out of the cow around 100 °F.

Also, I wouldn't have had to flood the thread if it was not for multiple raw milk advocates ganging up on me.

Indeed, sins of the tounge are real. This is why I am careful not to tell falsehoods and not to insult people personally.
Reply
#24
argaddini Wrote:Secondly, I read enough of your soruces to discredit them and find better alternatives. This is something you obviously do not do.

Okay, I kinda didn't want to get into this argument.  But I have just two points to make.  First of all, Dr. Weston Price spent years studying the human diet and nutrition and it's affect on growth, dental health, and overall disease.  He is an authority on the subject and dedicated his entire life to his research, travelling the globe to study all kinds of different people and how they fared on their given diet.  I don't see how you can possibly discredit him as a source as he was a pioneer in the field of nutrition and how it affects human health.

Secondly, besides all the health benefits of raw milk... You said yourself that raw milk is fine if it is fresh.  Indeed, local farmers who sell raw milk must already comply with very strict freshness and sanitization procedures.  That's not what the issue is about. I buy raw milk from a local farmer who also sells eggs and meat products.  This farmer has developed a recipe for raw-milk made yogurt that is the basis of their business.  If forced to comply with a pasteurization law they may lose their "nitch" in the business, as their whole operation is sold on the fact that it is fresh, pure raw milk and raw milk products.  On this one little farm, the family could lose their business, and the twenty odd farmhands that they employ could lose their jobs.  Multiply that across the country and many many people that currently earn a good honest living, working directly with the land as God had intended us to work will lose their livelihood.  In the past ten years or so there has been quite a movement of people buying farms and working the land with a traditional organic mixed-farm method which is very very good.  I would hate to see this movement take a blow.
Reply
#25
argaddini Wrote:What is "back information?" Are you refering to backwards infomration? Are you refering to the outdated infomation you have such a proclivity for?
Again, just because research is old, doesn't make it a non-truth. But here's something a little more modern. A statement from Allan N. Spreen, MD, who also happens to be be on the medical review panel for Discovery Health:
 
From Allan N. Spreen, MD, author, Nutritionally Incorrect: Why the modern Diet is Dangerous & How to Defend Yourself:

MILK PLEA

After ten years of private practice, and many more years researching and using nutrient therapies, I’ve become convinced that there’s total truth to the maxim ‘if man messed with it, don’t eat it. This rule couldn’t be any more appropriate when applied to milk.

It's so sad that the public has been so filled with propaganda concerning the ‘dangers’ of certified raw milk. People now think that 'pasteurized' means zero bacteria, with raw milk loaded with toxic 'bugs'. It's always shocking for people to learn that raw milk can have lower bacteria counts than the processed junk.

Where the word ‘danger’ should apply is when discussing the pasteurized, homogenized glop that we’re told is milk. It’s a legitimate argument that the substance is actually no longer classifiable as milk, once those processes are applied. Cow’s milk is primarily for baby cows. However, a primary rule is that you NEVER feed the pasteurized, homogenized stuff to calves. I spent my early summers on a dairy farm, and I still remember asking why we didn't give pasteurized milk to calves. The answer?..."You can't do that; it'll make 'em sick!" All dairy farmers know this (if they’re still in business).

There’s a huge loss of enzymatic activity within milk once it’s heated (pasteurized). Enzymes are proteins that are highly heat sensitive. To make matters worse, the highly touted source of calcium we’re told milk tends to be (in endless advertising) does not apply once it’s cooked, as mineral absorption decreases.

It gets worse. There are also dangers within the ‘wonderful convenience’ of homogenization. This process grinds up the molecules within cream to such an extent that it remains suspended within the milk. Now we’re saved the awful torture of having to shake up the milk if we want the two fractions mixed together.

Unfortunately, homogenization breaks up a significant little enzymatic protein called xanthine oxidase. There is evidence (that I choose to believe) that the remnants of this enzyme are not only more reactive now, but are also able to reach arterial walls, where they can cause tiny scars within the surface (or intima). The body then tries to protect itself by painting a tiny layer of cholesterol over the injury site. This action, combined with similar damage from chlorine molecules in our city water supplies, gets my vote for most of the huge increase in cardiovascular disease seen in the past 100 years.

We have a right to certified raw milk (or at least we used to, before the large milk producers lobbied to remove it). Now, in the interest of commercial convenience, lowered cost, and (above all) increased shelf life we've lost our access to what for many can be a wonderful food.

It’s time to get it back.

Good Health,

Allan N. Spreen, MD

 

 

Some more newer research on how Raw Milk Reduces Children's Allergies.

 

I've posted this before, but since it is recent, and it was deleted, I think it bears looking at again:

 

Supplemental Report in Favor of Raw Milk, which was sent to each Los Angeles County Board of Supervisor.

 

Quote:Secondly, I read enough of your soruces to discredit them and find better alternatives. You seem chalk the prestigious journals and soruces I cite (I guess Consumer Reports is not all that prestigious) to some sort of conspiracy.
 
I guess I have to ask. Since you feel you single-handedly have the power to discredit multiple sources, are you a doctor? A scientist? I would like to know what your qualifications are.

Quote:Also, I wouldn't have had to flood the thread if it was not for multiple raw milk advocates ganging up on me.
 
Firstly, disagreeing with you is not "ganging up" on you. Secondly, what did you think would happen when you right away cried "quackery"? Seriously.

Reply
#26
argaddini Wrote:Catholicmilkman,

"he contradicted himself at least once by saying in so many words, first, that raw milk is just as good as heated but then in a later post said that pasteurization is necessary to stop quacks from harming people with back information. Which is it? Is raw milk harmless or is it harmless? Or is it (gasp) superior to heated denatured acidic milk?"

What is "back information?" Are you refering to backwards infomration? Are you refering to the outdated infomation you have such a proclivity for?

By your words many people could think you have pride being unwilling to even look at the evidence no matter how old it is. I don't believe that but only that you are ignorant and brainwashed by bad propaganda to destroy Christian civilization. How many modern people would call Catholic Tradition backwards by your standards?
 
Just because evidence is old, such the evidence for our Catholic faith, does not mean it is outdated. Solid information and research is good and valid no matter what old it is.
 
Quote:Where did I contradict myself? From the begining I said raw milk was fine if it was fresh. GO READ.

I did and I saw that no matter what you said about fresh raw milk was totally outweighed by your favor of pasteurized milk and biased studies in favor of it. Fresh milk and pasteurized milk are two different things and they can't both be good so one must be poison and one must be sustaining, one wholesome the other half burnt and destroyed.
 
Quote:Secondly, I read enough of your soruces to discredit them and find better alternatives. You seem chalk the prestigious journals and soruces I cite (I guess Consumer Reports is not all that prestigious) to some sort of conspiracy.

Yes, it is an open conspiracy and lain in open sight for all to see, does the old maxim not say 'tell a lie so many times, long enough and people will believe it' and 'the best place to hide something is in plain sight'. I look at long-term research and studies. One glass of pasteurized milk is not going to kill anyone a second after they drink it but like the frog in cold water to be boiled to death it takes time. That is part of the nature of man it takes time to grow, it takes time to learn the faith, and sometimes it takes awhile.
 
Quote:If you did actually read current soruces, you would know that most milk labeled "pasturized" uses the HTST method which involves holding the milk at a temperature of 72 °C (161.5 F) for at least 15 seconds. This is less "cooked" than almost any food you typically cook. Some milk is pasturzed more stongly or even double pasturized, other milk is pasturized less strongly and is really almost raw since milk comes out of the cow around 100 °F.

I don't know where you are but my State it's hard to find a just low-temp. pasteurized milk. Anyway a lot of milk products are ultra-pasteurized and I disagree that it's almost raw either it is or it's not. 161° or a lot different than 100°, the difference between life and death if we were talking about atmospheric temperature
 
Quote:Also, I wouldn't have had to flood the thread if it was not for multiple raw milk advocates ganging up on me.

If you were so confident in your sources and their studies THEN you won't of have to flood the thread. If your 'proof' of pasteurization's safety was so sound it should be able to stood all by itself, right?
 
Quote:Indeed, sins of the tounge are real. This is why I am careful not to tell falsehoods and not to insult people personally.
So now the hard work and long long term research of Dr. Price are falsehoods. Wow, that's a big jump from fresh milk is okay to it's all fallacy. I don't remember insulting you I was telling the truth and that's all, if telling the truth is insulting then that's not my fault.
 
P.S. If you want to look credible to me I suggest that you use the Spell Check.
Reply
#27
Quote: I don't believe that but only that you are ignorant and brainwashed by bad propaganda to destroy Christian civilization
 
Oh for crying out loud you're talking about milk!!! MILK!!!
 
Good grief.[Image: eyes.gif]
 
 
Here's the solution to the milk problem:
 
[Image: beer2.jpg]
 
Reply
#28
AMEN TO THAT :clink:
Reply
#29
Spooky, are you related to Marty by any chance?  [Image: laff.gif]
 
Beer tastes nasty on Cocoa Krispies though.   Don't ask.  I was single at the time.
Reply
#30
This is timely:
 
http://www.mercola.com/current_vidupdate20061003.htm
S.A.G. ~ Kathy ~ Sanguine-choleric. Have fun...or else.

Adoramus te, Christe, et benedicimus tibi, quia per sanctam crucem tuam redemisti mundum.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)