Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #462200 > unrolled thread

OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-05-29 13:01 -0700
    Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-29 16:40 -0400
      Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 14:02 -0700
        Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-29 17:16 -0400
          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in   new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 14:39 -0700
            Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-29 14:49 -0700
              Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 15:04 -0700
                Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-29 18:23 -0400
                  Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in   new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 15:35 -0700
                Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Rheilly Phoull <rheilly@bigslong.com> - 2017-05-30 11:48 +0800
                  Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 00:08 -0700
              Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-05-30 01:18 -0800
                Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-30 08:18 -0700
                  Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-30 09:15 -0700
                    Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-30 09:29 -0700
            Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-29 17:58 -0400
              Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-30 07:42 +1000
              Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in   new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 15:18 -0700
                Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-29 18:43 -0400
        Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-29 17:29 -0400
          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 14:50 -0700
            Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-29 18:11 -0400
              Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in   new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-29 15:29 -0700
              Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-29 18:47 -0400
                Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-29 19:34 -0400
                  Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-29 19:39 -0400
                Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-29 17:50 -0700
                  Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in   new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 11:11 -0700
                    Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 17:53 -0400
                      Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 18:52 -0700
                    Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in   new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 18:39 -0700
                      Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in     new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-31 07:26 -0700
                        Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-31 07:43 -0700
                          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-31 18:03 -0400
                            Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-31 17:37 -0700
                          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-31 17:35 -0700
                        Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in     new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-31 17:28 -0700
                Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 18:41 -0700
            Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-29 18:46 -0400
            Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-29 17:45 -0700
        Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-29 16:48 -0700
          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 06:18 -0700
        Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> - 2017-05-29 20:26 -0500
          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-29 18:51 -0700
          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in   new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 06:31 -0700
            Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 17:58 -0400
        Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-30 09:09 +0100
          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in   new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 06:30 -0700
            Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-30 15:00 +0100
              Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in   new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 07:07 -0700
            Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 18:10 -0400
              Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 15:31 -0700
                Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 18:44 -0400
                  Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 16:03 -0700
                    Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 19:29 -0400
                      Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-30 16:39 -0700
                        Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 20:00 -0400
                      Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-31 08:27 +0100
                        Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-31 17:31 +1000
                          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-31 10:27 +0100
                          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-31 07:41 -0700
                Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-31 08:03 +0100
                Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joseph Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> - 2017-05-31 10:00 -0400
                  Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-31 07:38 -0700
          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-30 07:35 -0700
            Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-05-30 22:03 -0400
              Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-06-01 07:26 -0700
                Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-06-01 17:52 -0400
          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-30 18:05 -0400
            Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 19:03 -0700
        Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-13 20:33 +0100
          Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-06-13 12:54 -0700
          Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-13 17:56 -0400
            Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-14 21:23 +0100
              Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-14 18:50 -0400
                Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-15 20:34 +0100
                  Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-15 19:24 -0400
                    Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-17 08:05 +0100
                      Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-17 10:05 -0400
                        Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-06-17 16:53 +0100
                          Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-17 19:07 -0700
                        Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-06-17 09:03 -0700
              Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Laffer <chuckles@disposable.mail> - 2017-06-14 21:40 -0700
                Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-14 22:31 -0700
                Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-06-15 06:01 -0700
                  Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-15 08:24 -0700
                    Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-06-15 13:03 -0700
                  Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-15 12:38 -0400
          Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-13 19:17 -0700
    Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-29 18:04 -0700
    Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-05-30 01:16 -0800
      Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 04:46 -0700
    Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-30 18:57 -0700
      Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-31 07:42 -0700
        Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-31 08:47 -0700
          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-05-31 09:39 -0700
            Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-01 06:26 -0700
    Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-31 19:28 +1000
    Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study "rc12234@cox.net" <rc12234@cox.net> - 2017-05-31 11:08 -0700
    Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-06-13 04:48 -0700
      Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-13 15:25 +0200
        Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 02:54 -0700
          Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-14 12:23 +0200
      Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-06-18 04:37 -0700
        Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-18 08:23 -0700

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#462234

On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:02:11 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2017-05-29 13:40, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 13:01:13 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Raw milk benefits:
>>>
>>> http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01731-5/abstract
>>
>> More features of raw milk:
>> https://www.cdc.gov/features/rawmilk/
>>
>
>That contains a lot of nonsense. For example, quote "Is raw milk a good 
>source of beneficial bacteria? --- No. Raw milk contains bacteria, and 
>some of them can be harmful".
>
>Anyone who has ever made good vla, yoghurt or fine cheeses out of truly 
>fresh milk knows better.
>
>This craze to pasteurize just about everything is the main reason why 
>there does not exist really good American Camembert or Brie at regular 
>stores. Must buy imported, which we always do when we can.
>

Legally, cheese imported into the US must be made from pasteurized
milk, or aged for at least 60 days.

Raw milk cheese illegally imported from Mexico kills a few people now
and then.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462285

On 2017-05-29 16:48, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:02:11 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-05-29 13:40, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 13:01:13 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Raw milk benefits:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01731-5/abstract
>>>
>>> More features of raw milk:
>>> https://www.cdc.gov/features/rawmilk/
>>>
>>
>> That contains a lot of nonsense. For example, quote "Is raw milk a good
>> source of beneficial bacteria? --- No. Raw milk contains bacteria, and
>> some of them can be harmful".
>>
>> Anyone who has ever made good vla, yoghurt or fine cheeses out of truly
>> fresh milk knows better.
>>
>> This craze to pasteurize just about everything is the main reason why
>> there does not exist really good American Camembert or Brie at regular
>> stores. Must buy imported, which we always do when we can.
>>
>
> Legally, cheese imported into the US must be made from pasteurized
> milk, or aged for at least 60 days.
>

With Brie it is usually a little over a month but you can stretch that 
to 60 days. We have tried for decades now and the only stuff that tastes 
really good says "Imported" on the package. There is some ok American 
Brie but just ok and not "Whoa!".


> Raw milk cheese illegally imported from Mexico kills a few people now
> and then.
>

There is always a risk. Just like I could crash and burn on my mountain 
bike, considering the trails I use. OTOH if I didn't do it I'd soon look 
like a blimp and die from some cardiovascular whatever.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462244

On 5/29/2017 4:02 PM, Joerg wrote:
[snip]
> When I grew up I knew a lot of kids. Even as a teenager because I helped as a 
> volunteer to build playgrounds. The number of kids with a peanut allergy was ... 
> zero.
> 

I never heard of peanut allergy until ~20 years ago. I was born in 1940 an I don't
remember anyone having allergies or asthma when I was a kid.  Had the measles,
chicken pox. Brother had the mumps. A kid a couple of blocks over had polio and 
that
was about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462245

On Mon, 29 May 2017 20:26:08 -0500, gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com>
wrote:

>On 5/29/2017 4:02 PM, Joerg wrote:
>[snip]
>> When I grew up I knew a lot of kids. Even as a teenager because I helped as a 
>> volunteer to build playgrounds. The number of kids with a peanut allergy was ... 
>> zero.
>> 
>
>I never heard of peanut allergy until ~20 years ago. I was born in 1940 an I don't
>remember anyone having allergies or asthma when I was a kid.  Had the measles,
>chicken pox. Brother had the mumps. A kid a couple of blocks over had polio and 
>that
>was about it.

Born in 1940 also.  I had ALL the aforementioned diseases, including
polio, plus pneumonia and scarlet fever, all in a one year span
(1947)... but ate peanut butter as far back as I can remember, without
any reaction... yummy ;-)
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

"It is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you do that
is the secret of happiness."  -James Barrie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462288 — Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

On 2017-05-29 18:26, gray_wolf wrote:
> On 5/29/2017 4:02 PM, Joerg wrote:
> [snip]
>> When I grew up I knew a lot of kids. Even as a teenager because I
>> helped as a volunteer to build playgrounds. The number of kids with a
>> peanut allergy was ... zero.
>>
>
> I never heard of peanut allergy until ~20 years ago. I was born in 1940
> an I don't
> remember anyone having allergies or asthma when I was a kid.  Had the
> measles,
> chicken pox. Brother had the mumps. A kid a couple of blocks over had
> polio and that
> was about it.


There also was never a complaint about allergies against dogs, cats and 
so on. People just didn't have that. However, Fido als was not bathed 
every week which is really bad for the health of a dog's skin. We did 
have one kid who had asthma but he grew out of it. Scary though. Some of 
that might be attributable to air pollution which was quite bad when I 
grew up. So some things have become better. Parenting hasn't IMO.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462344

On Tue, 30 May 2017 06:31:10 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2017-05-29 18:26, gray_wolf wrote:
>> On 5/29/2017 4:02 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> When I grew up I knew a lot of kids. Even as a teenager because I
>>> helped as a volunteer to build playgrounds. The number of kids with a
>>> peanut allergy was ... zero.
>>>
>>
>> I never heard of peanut allergy until ~20 years ago. I was born in 1940
>> an I don't
>> remember anyone having allergies or asthma when I was a kid.  Had the
>> measles,
>> chicken pox. Brother had the mumps. A kid a couple of blocks over had
>> polio and that
>> was about it.
>
>
>There also was never a complaint about allergies against dogs, cats and 
>so on.

Baloney.  Cat and dog allergies have been around since dogs and cats
were domesticated (well, if you consider cats to have been
domesticated).

>People just didn't have that. However, Fido als was not bathed 
>every week which is really bad for the health of a dog's skin. We did 
>have one kid who had asthma but he grew out of it. Scary though. Some of 
>that might be attributable to air pollution which was quite bad when I 
>grew up. So some things have become better. Parenting hasn't IMO.

Fido isn't today, either.  And cats?  You gotta be kiddin'.  Much of
the allergies animals have are food related.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462270

On 29/05/2017 22:02, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-05-29 13:40, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2017 13:01:13 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Raw milk benefits:
>>>
>>> http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01731-5/abstract
>>
>> More features of raw milk:
>> https://www.cdc.gov/features/rawmilk/
>>
>
> That contains a lot of nonsense. For example, quote "Is raw milk a good
> source of beneficial bacteria? --- No. Raw milk contains bacteria, and
> some of them can be harmful".
>
> Anyone who has ever made good vla, yoghurt or fine cheeses out of truly
> fresh milk knows better.

There is a world of difference between unpasteurised milk and 
unpasteurised cheese though. The latter through having a culture 
inoculated into it has zapped most of the potentially nasty bugs that 
might have been present at low levels in the original milk. Even so it 
isn't a good idea for immune suppressed people to consume unpasteurised 
soft (or hard) cheeses - there is still a risk of Listeria etc.

I agree that unpasteurised cheeses generally do taste better than 
pasteurised ones but you have to accept that there is a slight risk. The 
risk from drinking unpasteurised milk is at least an order of magnitude 
higher though.

In much the same way that drinking weak beer protected you from dirty 
water back in the days when sanitation was not understood.

> This craze to pasteurize just about everything is the main reason why
> there does not exist really good American Camembert or Brie at regular
> stores. Must buy imported, which we always do when we can.

"Cheese" in America seems to come in rubbery uniform rectangular slices 
with a limited choice of colour and no flavour whatsoever.

> If we as a country continue to promote helicopter governing and
> helicopter parenting the number of people with serious or even
> life-threatening allergies will continue to climb. Fast.

Not sure I understand the reference to helicopters.

I do think that the obsessive compulsive cleaning sterile environment 
and modern fad for chemical smell removers in the home may well be 
contributing to the growing allergy problems. The developing immune 
system isn't being challenged enough by real pathogens in a super clean 
environment and so picks on the wrong targets as a result.

> When I grew up I knew a lot of kids. Even as a teenager because I helped
> as a volunteer to build playgrounds. The number of kids with a peanut
> allergy was ... zero.

The problem is now that there are so many processed foods containing a 
trace of peanuts in them including a lot of baby foods. The irony is 
that in countries where peanuts are commonplace eating a decent amount 
of them whilst still very young doesn't seem to cause any problems.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462286 — Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

On 2017-05-30 01:09, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 29/05/2017 22:02, Joerg wrote:

[...]

>> If we as a country continue to promote helicopter governing and
>> helicopter parenting the number of people with serious or even
>> life-threatening allergies will continue to climb. Fast.
>
> Not sure I understand the reference to helicopters.
>

By "helicopter parents" we in America mean parents who are constantly 
supervising and babying their kids, hovering over them all the time. It 
is often sickening. For example, here they are carted to the school bus 
stop but then mom keeps the _in_ the minivan until the bus shows, engine 
running. So the kid won't catch a draft of wind and get the sniffles or 
whatever.

I rode my bike to school, distance about five miles. Through a ... 
<gasp> ... forest. "Modern" parents would get nightmares just thinking 
about that.


> I do think that the obsessive compulsive cleaning sterile environment
> and modern fad for chemical smell removers in the home may well be
> contributing to the growing allergy problems. The developing immune
> system isn't being challenged enough by real pathogens in a super clean
> environment and so picks on the wrong targets as a result.
>

Exactly. Some folks don't understand this and there is the problem.


>> When I grew up I knew a lot of kids. Even as a teenager because I helped
>> as a volunteer to build playgrounds. The number of kids with a peanut
>> allergy was ... zero.
>
> The problem is now that there are so many processed foods containing a
> trace of peanuts in them including a lot of baby foods. The irony is
> that in countries where peanuts are commonplace eating a decent amount
> of them whilst still very young doesn't seem to cause any problems.
>

That's what I am saying the whole time. Early exposure is often the only 
way to have a good allergy resistance in the population. That doesn't 
always work when you grow up on another continent. For example, I am 
super sensitive to poison oak which we just did not have in Europe. 
However, weaning a human body from that sensitivity isn't as easy as 
with other reaction tendencies, it's not really an allergy but a 
chemical in the plant (urushiol).

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462292

On 30/05/2017 14:30, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-05-30 01:09, Martin Brown wrote:

>> The problem is now that there are so many processed foods containing a
>> trace of peanuts in them including a lot of baby foods. The irony is
>> that in countries where peanuts are commonplace eating a decent amount
>> of them whilst still very young doesn't seem to cause any problems.
>>
>
> That's what I am saying the whole time. Early exposure is often the only
> way to have a good allergy resistance in the population. That doesn't
> always work when you grow up on another continent. For example, I am

You do find that some things are different. In the UK the most common 
allergy is to grass pollen but in Japan it is pollen from the tree 
cryptomeria. A side effect of replanting post WWII and not maintaining 
the forests for timber production - far too many old trees now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_fever_in_Japan

> super sensitive to poison oak which we just did not have in Europe.
> However, weaning a human body from that sensitivity isn't as easy as
> with other reaction tendencies, it's not really an allergy but a
> chemical in the plant (urushiol).

Very few people are able to tolerate it safely. Toxicodendron is a 
strong hint that it is a nasty branch for family Anacardiaceae.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicodendron_vernicifluum

Same problem with Japanese lacquer from the lacquer tree which has sap 
containing urushiol. Apparently lacquer workers do eventually become 
desensitised to it (or give up) after a very painful apprenticeship.

It is the plant CW equivalent of mustard gas in terms of the damage 
inflicted on human skin cells.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462293 — Re: OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

On 2017-05-30 07:00, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 30/05/2017 14:30, Joerg wrote:

[...]


>> super sensitive to poison oak which we just did not have in Europe.
>> However, weaning a human body from that sensitivity isn't as easy as
>> with other reaction tendencies, it's not really an allergy but a
>> chemical in the plant (urushiol).
>
> Very few people are able to tolerate it safely. Toxicodendron is a
> strong hint that it is a nasty branch for family Anacardiaceae.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicodendron_vernicifluum
>
> Same problem with Japanese lacquer from the lacquer tree which has sap
> containing urushiol. Apparently lacquer workers do eventually become
> desensitised to it (or give up) after a very painful apprenticeship.
>
> It is the plant CW equivalent of mustard gas in terms of the damage
> inflicted on human skin cells.
>

My wife took a photo of my arms after a serious exposure. You would not 
want to see that photo.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462347

On Tue, 30 May 2017 06:30:38 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2017-05-30 01:09, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 29/05/2017 22:02, Joerg wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> If we as a country continue to promote helicopter governing and
>>> helicopter parenting the number of people with serious or even
>>> life-threatening allergies will continue to climb. Fast.
>>
>> Not sure I understand the reference to helicopters.
>>
>
>By "helicopter parents" we in America mean parents who are constantly 
>supervising and babying their kids, hovering over them all the time. It 
>is often sickening. For example, here they are carted to the school bus 
>stop but then mom keeps the _in_ the minivan until the bus shows, engine 
>running. So the kid won't catch a draft of wind and get the sniffles or 
>whatever.

My neighbors do it in 70F weather.  I can understand it along a
highway or the rather busy and windey tertiary road but in our
development, on a dead end with maybe 10 houses?

>I rode my bike to school, distance about five miles. Through a ... 
><gasp> ... forest. "Modern" parents would get nightmares just thinking 
>about that.

I walked to school, five miles through the snow, up-hill.  Both ways!
>
>> I do think that the obsessive compulsive cleaning sterile environment
>> and modern fad for chemical smell removers in the home may well be
>> contributing to the growing allergy problems. The developing immune
>> system isn't being challenged enough by real pathogens in a super clean
>> environment and so picks on the wrong targets as a result.
>>
>
>Exactly. Some folks don't understand this and there is the problem.
>
>
>>> When I grew up I knew a lot of kids. Even as a teenager because I helped
>>> as a volunteer to build playgrounds. The number of kids with a peanut
>>> allergy was ... zero.
>>
>> The problem is now that there are so many processed foods containing a
>> trace of peanuts in them including a lot of baby foods. The irony is
>> that in countries where peanuts are commonplace eating a decent amount
>> of them whilst still very young doesn't seem to cause any problems.
>>
>
>That's what I am saying the whole time. Early exposure is often the only 
>way to have a good allergy resistance in the population. That doesn't 
>always work when you grow up on another continent. For example, I am 
>super sensitive to poison oak which we just did not have in Europe. 
>However, weaning a human body from that sensitivity isn't as easy as 
>with other reaction tendencies, it's not really an allergy but a 
>chemical in the plant (urushiol).

So you're saying that people who grew up in the US don't have poison
oak allergy?  Really?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462352

On 2017-05-30 15:10, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 06:30:38 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-05-30 01:09, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2017 22:02, Joerg wrote:

[...]


>>>> When I grew up I knew a lot of kids. Even as a teenager because I helped
>>>> as a volunteer to build playgrounds. The number of kids with a peanut
>>>> allergy was ... zero.
>>>
>>> The problem is now that there are so many processed foods containing a
>>> trace of peanuts in them including a lot of baby foods. The irony is
>>> that in countries where peanuts are commonplace eating a decent amount
>>> of them whilst still very young doesn't seem to cause any problems.
>>>
>>
>> That's what I am saying the whole time. Early exposure is often the only
>> way to have a good allergy resistance in the population. That doesn't
>> always work when you grow up on another continent. For example, I am
>> super sensitive to poison oak which we just did not have in Europe.
>> However, weaning a human body from that sensitivity isn't as easy as
>> with other reaction tendencies, it's not really an allergy but a
>> chemical in the plant (urushiol).
>
> So you're saying that people who grew up in the US don't have poison
> oak allergy?  Really?
>

They do, but there is a two-digit percentage of Americans that is not 
very sensitive or not sensitive at all. My neighbor can walk right 
through it in shorts and get a mild itch, at the most. His dad is a 
former gardener and he can grab bushels of it with his bare arms and 
gets ... nothing. All European immigrants I know without exception 
pretty much have to seek medical help after just touching poison oak. Me 
included, because you can't get Prednisone without seeing the doctor.

In some parts of Asia more people are supposedly resistant against it 
and they say it is because they used lacquer that contains urushiol for 
making fancy dessert bowls and such. Meaning they ate from it.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462353

On Tue, 30 May 2017 15:31:35 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2017-05-30 15:10, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 06:30:38 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-05-30 01:09, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> On 29/05/2017 22:02, Joerg wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>
>>>>> When I grew up I knew a lot of kids. Even as a teenager because I helped
>>>>> as a volunteer to build playgrounds. The number of kids with a peanut
>>>>> allergy was ... zero.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is now that there are so many processed foods containing a
>>>> trace of peanuts in them including a lot of baby foods. The irony is
>>>> that in countries where peanuts are commonplace eating a decent amount
>>>> of them whilst still very young doesn't seem to cause any problems.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's what I am saying the whole time. Early exposure is often the only
>>> way to have a good allergy resistance in the population. That doesn't
>>> always work when you grow up on another continent. For example, I am
>>> super sensitive to poison oak which we just did not have in Europe.
>>> However, weaning a human body from that sensitivity isn't as easy as
>>> with other reaction tendencies, it's not really an allergy but a
>>> chemical in the plant (urushiol).
>>
>> So you're saying that people who grew up in the US don't have poison
>> oak allergy?  Really?
>>
>
>They do, but there is a two-digit percentage of Americans that is not 
>very sensitive or not sensitive at all. My neighbor can walk right 
>through it in shorts and get a mild itch, at the most. His dad is a 
>former gardener and he can grab bushels of it with his bare arms and 
>gets ... nothing. All European immigrants I know without exception 
>pretty much have to seek medical help after just touching poison oak. Me 
>included, because you can't get Prednisone without seeing the doctor.

...and you consider this proof?  BTW, I'm not affected either (not
that I push my luck) but it has nothing to do with exposure, or lack
thereof, when I was a child.
>
>In some parts of Asia more people are supposedly resistant against it 
>and they say it is because they used lacquer that contains urushiol for 
>making fancy dessert bowls and such. Meaning they ate from it.

You can also become sensitized to allergens the same way.  So, again,
you say that a little is bad and a lot is good?  Your logic doesn't
follow.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462354

On 2017-05-30 15:44, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 15:31:35 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>

[...]


>>
>> In some parts of Asia more people are supposedly resistant against it
>> and they say it is because they used lacquer that contains urushiol for
>> making fancy dessert bowls and such. Meaning they ate from it.
>
> You can also become sensitized to allergens the same way.  So, again,
> you say that a little is bad and a lot is good?  Your logic doesn't
> follow.
>

No, what I am saying is that with most exposure (not necessarily poison 
oak but other stuff) a little is good, a lot all at once can be bad. 
Because a lot of exposure all at once at young age could mean an 
ambulance ride.

What is bad is when helicopter parents strive for zero exposure. That 
can result in children that are a bit sickly later in life.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462355

On Tue, 30 May 2017 16:03:25 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2017-05-30 15:44, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 15:31:35 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>[...]
>
>
>>>
>>> In some parts of Asia more people are supposedly resistant against it
>>> and they say it is because they used lacquer that contains urushiol for
>>> making fancy dessert bowls and such. Meaning they ate from it.
>>
>> You can also become sensitized to allergens the same way.  So, again,
>> you say that a little is bad and a lot is good?  Your logic doesn't
>> follow.
>>
>
>No, what I am saying is that with most exposure (not necessarily poison 
>oak but other stuff) a little is good, a lot all at once can be bad. 
>Because a lot of exposure all at once at young age could mean an 
>ambulance ride.

So, because trace amounts of peanuts are in everything, children
develop peanut allergies?
>
>What is bad is when helicopter parents strive for zero exposure. That 
>can result in children that are a bit sickly later in life.

But I thought that peanuts were in just about everything?  How can
there be peanut allergies?

BTW, I didn't grow up around poison oak or ivy, either but have never
had an issue with it.  OTOH, my brothers all have had it, though we
grew up in very similar environments.  They probably had even more
exposure when we were young than did I.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462356

On 2017-05-30 16:29, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 16:03:25 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-05-30 15:44, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 15:31:35 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> In some parts of Asia more people are supposedly resistant against it
>>>> and they say it is because they used lacquer that contains urushiol for
>>>> making fancy dessert bowls and such. Meaning they ate from it.
>>>
>>> You can also become sensitized to allergens the same way.  So, again,
>>> you say that a little is bad and a lot is good?  Your logic doesn't
>>> follow.
>>>
>>
>> No, what I am saying is that with most exposure (not necessarily poison
>> oak but other stuff) a little is good, a lot all at once can be bad.
>> Because a lot of exposure all at once at young age could mean an
>> ambulance ride.
>
> So, because trace amounts of peanuts are in everything, children
> develop peanut allergies?


No, they develop them because they are fed super-controlled formula. 
When trace amnounts are too tiny they are the same as nothing. Nothing 
or too close to nothing is not a good thing when it comes to allergy 
prevention. Read up on this stuff.


>>
>> What is bad is when helicopter parents strive for zero exposure. That
>> can result in children that are a bit sickly later in life.
>
> But I thought that peanuts were in just about everything?  How can
> there be peanut allergies?
>

Because peanuts are not in everything.


> BTW, I didn't grow up around poison oak or ivy, either but have never
> had an issue with it.  OTOH, my brothers all have had it, though we
> grew up in very similar environments.  They probably had even more
> exposure when we were young than did I.
>

As I said, with poison oak this doesn't always work.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462359

On Tue, 30 May 2017 16:39:22 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2017-05-30 16:29, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 16:03:25 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-05-30 15:44, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 15:31:35 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In some parts of Asia more people are supposedly resistant against it
>>>>> and they say it is because they used lacquer that contains urushiol for
>>>>> making fancy dessert bowls and such. Meaning they ate from it.
>>>>
>>>> You can also become sensitized to allergens the same way.  So, again,
>>>> you say that a little is bad and a lot is good?  Your logic doesn't
>>>> follow.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, what I am saying is that with most exposure (not necessarily poison
>>> oak but other stuff) a little is good, a lot all at once can be bad.
>>> Because a lot of exposure all at once at young age could mean an
>>> ambulance ride.
>>
>> So, because trace amounts of peanuts are in everything, children
>> develop peanut allergies?
>
>
>No, they develop them because they are fed super-controlled formula. 
>When trace amnounts are too tiny they are the same as nothing. Nothing 
>or too close to nothing is not a good thing when it comes to allergy 
>prevention. Read up on this stuff.

So breast milk has peanuts in it.  Gotcha!

>>>
>>> What is bad is when helicopter parents strive for zero exposure. That
>>> can result in children that are a bit sickly later in life.
>>
>> But I thought that peanuts were in just about everything?  How can
>> there be peanut allergies?
>>
>
>Because peanuts are not in everything.

But it was just said that they are.  (and they are in just about
everything, which is why peanut allergy is so serious)

>> BTW, I didn't grow up around poison oak or ivy, either but have never
>> had an issue with it.  OTOH, my brothers all have had it, though we
>> grew up in very similar environments.  They probably had even more
>> exposure when we were young than did I.
>>
>
>As I said, with poison oak this doesn't always work.

But *you* have a poison oak allergy because you weren't exposed to it
as a child!  (good grief!)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462397

On 31/05/2017 00:29, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 16:03:25 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-05-30 15:44, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 15:31:35 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> In some parts of Asia more people are supposedly resistant against it
>>>> and they say it is because they used lacquer that contains urushiol for
>>>> making fancy dessert bowls and such. Meaning they ate from it.
>>>
>>> You can also become sensitized to allergens the same way.  So, again,
>>> you say that a little is bad and a lot is good?  Your logic doesn't
>>> follow.
>>
>> No, what I am saying is that with most exposure (not necessarily poison
>> oak but other stuff) a little is good, a lot all at once can be bad.
>> Because a lot of exposure all at once at young age could mean an
>> ambulance ride.
>
> So, because trace amounts of peanuts are in everything, children
> develop peanut allergies?

That is thought to be the case at least in the modern environment. It's 
incidence has increased markedly since the 1990's when stuffing 
processed food with traces of soya and peanut protein became common.

Child's developing immune system sees traces of peanut legume protein 
fragments as a hostile target and then an immune response develops.

https://www.anaphylaxis.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Peanut-v7-formatted-with-new-logo.pdf

There is a treatment of sorts for severe allergies. A friend with severe 
hayfever was involved in one of the early medical trials.

https://www.anaphylaxis.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Peanut-v7-formatted-with-new-logo.pdf

See the section "Hope for the fuuture" p8

Another view is based on immunological testing
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/450513

>> What is bad is when helicopter parents strive for zero exposure. That
>> can result in children that are a bit sickly later in life.
>
> But I thought that peanuts were in just about everything?  How can
> there be peanut allergies?

It is very hard for people with peanut allergies.

Interestingly you can suddenly become allergic. A fair number of 
beekeepers of my acquaintance have become allergic to bee stings after 
having been stung perhaps a few dozen times in their lifetime. They have 
to carry an epi pen with them if the response is acute and ultimately 
give up beekeeping or get someone else to do the hives.

Same with hair dyes you should always do a patch test first.
>
> BTW, I didn't grow up around poison oak or ivy, either but have never
> had an issue with it.  OTOH, my brothers all have had it, though we
> grew up in very similar environments.  They probably had even more
> exposure when we were young than did I.

If you have never been exposed to it you may get away with the very 
first exposure with relatively little effect. It is the second time 
after the immune system has been primed to react that you find out how 
bad your allergy really is.

Plenty of industrial chemicals are bad allergic sensitisers in the same 
way as urushiol - toluene diisocyanate (flexible foam) for instance.

As a youngster I was allergic to tobacco smoke and some perfumes 
sneezing uncontrollably but I grew out of it as a teenager. I still 
respond to strong odd smells with a sudden sneeze around a couple of 
seconds before I or anyone around me is conscious of the smell.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462400

On 31/05/17 17:27, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 31/05/2017 00:29, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 16:03:25 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-05-30 15:44, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 15:31:35 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> In some parts of Asia more people are supposedly resistant against it
>>>>> and they say it is because they used lacquer that contains urushiol
>>>>> for
>>>>> making fancy dessert bowls and such. Meaning they ate from it.
>>>>
>>>> You can also become sensitized to allergens the same way.  So, again,
>>>> you say that a little is bad and a lot is good?  Your logic doesn't
>>>> follow.
>>>
>>> No, what I am saying is that with most exposure (not necessarily poison
>>> oak but other stuff) a little is good, a lot all at once can be bad.
>>> Because a lot of exposure all at once at young age could mean an
>>> ambulance ride.
>>
>> So, because trace amounts of peanuts are in everything, children
>> develop peanut allergies?
>
> That is thought to be the case at least in the modern environment.

The polar opposite is also thought to be the case, also by
real scientists. That's a fair indication that we don't
actually know... but here is a good reference to the actual
science that I commented on earlier, and no-one bothered to
chase up:

<https://theconversation.com/introduce-eggs-and-peanuts-early-in-infants-diets-to-reduce-the-risk-of-allergies-65564>

So, introducing infants to peanut products early seems to
reduce the prevalence of allergy to it, whatever other factors
may be at play. So it's arguable that our fear of peanut allergy
led to withholding it until it's introduced later, and then causes
the allergy.

That would truly be a case of "nothing to fear but fear itself".

Clifford Heath.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462401

On 31/05/2017 08:31, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 31/05/17 17:27, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 31/05/2017 00:29, krw@notreal.com wrote:

>>> So, because trace amounts of peanuts are in everything, children
>>> develop peanut allergies?
>>
>> That is thought to be the case at least in the modern environment.
>
> The polar opposite is also thought to be the case, also by
> real scientists. That's a fair indication that we don't
> actually know... but here is a good reference to the actual
> science that I commented on earlier, and no-one bothered to

It isn't necessarily the polar opposite. What seems to be the case is 
that exposure to macroscopic quantities of peanut or egg whilst still 
very young is a good thing. Countries where peanuts form a part of the 
early diet have much lower incidence of the allergy than first world.

"Avoidance" may not be possible today since so many processed foods 
contain soya or peanut as protein additives. It is thought that traces 
introduced too early to children can result in problems by priming the 
rather bored immune system against false targets because it no longer 
has to cope with a natural dirty environment it has evolved to handle.

> chase up:
>
> <https://theconversation.com/introduce-eggs-and-peanuts-early-in-infants-diets-to-reduce-the-risk-of-allergies-65564>
>
>
> So, introducing infants to peanut products early seems to
> reduce the prevalence of allergy to it, whatever other factors
> may be at play. So it's arguable that our fear of peanut allergy
> led to withholding it until it's introduced later, and then causes
> the allergy.

Something has changed radically in the fairly recent past. Peanut 
allergy was rare when I was a youngster and they were unusual treats. 
The worry then was of choking on one rather than being allergic.

Overly clean near sterile environment and/or soya/peanut protein being 
used to fortify processed foods are both candidates. It could be 
something else entirely but it has to be from some recent change(s).

> That would truly be a case of "nothing to fear but fear itself".

I am sure that eventually it will be understood why there has been such 
a significant rise in peanut allergy in particular and nut allergies in 
general during the past three decades.

Returning to the Japanese theme it is worth noting that a majority of 
their population are intolerant of cow's milk - lacking an enzyme to 
deal with lactose. Some also lack a key enzyme needed to handle alcohol 
and go by the unkind nickname of Litmus-san (turning bright red).

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web