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

#464896 — Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 1:53:13 AM UTC+10, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >wrote in message news:0edakcdj2g83u2diuopnflnv8g1a317lm4@4ax.com...
> 
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 08:05:53 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
> <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk>> wrote:
> 
> >>-----Original Message----- 
> >>>>From: krw@notreal.com
> >>>>Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 12:24 AM Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> >>>>Subject: Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in 
> >>>>new
> >>>>study
> >>
> >>>>On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 20:34:58 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
> >><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk>> wrote:

<snip>
 
> Its interesting to note that you speak for the whole world in declaring that 
> everyone that is not lactose intolerant, don't care a shit about those that 
> are.
> 
> What evidence do you have to support that somewhat arrogant conjecture?
> 
> Certainly one would anticipate that many that produce lactose free milk are 
> not so afflicted themselves, but do care because of the profit involved in 
> selling it. There are also those that are, apparently, more charitable than 
> yourself that are also concerned about issues that don't directly effect 
> themselves.

Suggesting that krw "undergoes a course in logic and deductive reasoning" rather missed the point about krw's cognitive defects.

Krw treats what he thinks knows as infallibly correct, and expects everybody to have access to this data-base, and to be equally confident about it's content.

His claims only make sense when read from that point of view. The approach is obviously insane, but krw hasn't been locked up yet, so presumably his wife keeps him under control.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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

#464833 — Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 10:05:59 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 08:05:53 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>-----Original Message----- 
>>>From: krw@notreal.com
>>>Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 12:24 AM Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
>>>Subject: Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new
>>>study
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 20:34:58 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
>><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>wrote in message news:91f3kcptiv4kb6pfg2g8mntg3vk9kjtmh7@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>This craze to drink cows milk is the mystery, oh wait a mo... big
>>>>>>business
>>>>>>trying to extract cash from people, despite the medical ethical
>>>>>>concerns,
>>>>>>comes to mind. For me, it aggravates my acne, for my twin brother, he is
>>>>>>>stunningly allergic to it, it could actually kill him.
>>>>
>>>>>...and the rest of us should give a shit about your problems, exactly
>>>>why?
>>>>
>>>>>>So, you personally don't care a shit about others, what's your point?
>>>
>>>>>No, I don't give a shit about your allergies.  They have no bearing on
>>>>>my life whatsoever.
>>>
>>>>This newsgroup is not here for your personal,  convenience.
>>
>>>You got it exactly backwards.  The rest of us are not here to fulfill
>>>your every need.
>>
>>And what, exactly, was that need of mine that was fulfilled?
>
>1)  You're offended that someone tolerates, well, what you can't.  You
>can't have that!
>
>2) An argument, apparently.
>
>>>
>>>>Posts are for everyone to read, despite notionally being a reply to a
>>>>particular post. Its clear that my post was a general post to anyone that
>>>>might be interested.
>>
>>>Unless you're a snowflake in need of a safe space, there is no way you
>>>could infer that I have any intention of interfering with you in any
>>>way.  The opposite is not true.
>>
>>You do have a habit making replies that have, essentially, no relation to
>>what was said.
>
>You can't even read what _you_ write.  It's not surprising that you
>can't read other's response.
>
>>Where was it ever claimed that that you had an intention of interfering in
>>my life, or me with yours in any way whatsoever?
>
>Lie.
>
>>You appear to have this inner voice in your head reading to you in lieu of
>>the actual posts.
>
>You have no idea what you're talking about.
>
>>I think the problem is that you are assuming much not in evidence.
>
>Only what _you_ have written.
>>>>
>>>>>Well, understanding that large percentages of people have the same
>>>>>medical
>>>>>problem, but have no idea of possible causes, it could be of significant
>>>>>benefit to them to have a solution.
>>>
>>>>>The solution has nothing to do with me nor drinking milk.
>>>
>>>>And your point is?
>>
>>>Good fucking Christ on toast.  Do you even read what you write?
>>
>>Sure, 
>
>We agree.  Good.
>
>>>>>Indeed why do you actually post to this NG at all? Presumably many post
>>>>>to
>>>>>freely offer advice to the many that post problems here, unless they are
>>>>>the
>>>>>type that are a one way suck.
>>>
>>>>You really can't remember the subject of this part of the thread?  If
>>>>your short-term memory is so bad, perhaps you should get a checkup
>>>>from the neck up.
>>>
>>>The title begs the response, that milk, is not necessarily good for people,
>>>>raw or not..
>>
>>>Not only irrelevant but bullshit.
>>
>>What part of 75% of the world is intolerant to lactose have you still
>>missed, after several posts?
>
>YOu really are (willfully, one supposes) illiterate.
>
>>Its relevant because, err.. because...the title of this thread includes
>>"milk" and "health".
>
>So any sentence with the words "milk" or "health", written by you, is
>gospel?  <giggle>
>>>>
>>>>>My brother had tremendous suffering for many, many years, with severe
>>>>>Eczema, until he solved the problem by becoming Vegan. It is of no
>>>>>benefit
>>>>>to me or my brother to post this information, but it may well help
>>>>>someone
>>>>>else.
>>>
>>>>...and that has something to do with others drinking milk?
>>>
>>>>Sure, all the others that may also be allergic to milk, but not be aware
>>>>of
>>>it.
>>
>>>Who the fuck cares?
>>
>>Those that are allergic to milk do, there are millions and millions of them.
>>Apparently, you do also, otherwise you would not be replying to these posts
>>to tell us all how much you don't care about milk.
>
>While it may be a problem, FOR THOSE AFFECTED, it doesn't mean shit
>for those who aren't.  If you don't like it, don't drink it, dummy.

Yet another village idiot to expose >:-}
		
                                        ...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]

#464502 — Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

On 06/14/2017 01:23 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:

> My brother had tremendous suffering for many, many years, with severe
> Eczema, until he solved the problem by becoming Vegan.

Good move. I'm Vegetarian for 40+ years, but can't quite make it to Vegan.


<http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pineapple-pesticide-linked-parkinsons-disease-n477346>

"A pineapple pesticide that made its way into milk in Hawaii also made 
its way into men’s brains, and those men were more likely to develop 
Parkinson’s disease, a new study finds."

"It’s known the milk in Hawaii was contaminated, probably from the feed 
given to the cattle."


My dad drank milk. A lot of it. He was healthy UNTIL quitting smoking, 
near age 80. He soon developed Parkinsons' Disease.

"And the study also seems to support a mystifying observation: smokers 
seem to be protected against Parkinson’s."

I don't drink milk, AND I smoke. Yay!

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

#464504 — Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 2:41:02 PM UTC+10, Laffer wrote:
> On 06/14/2017 01:23 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> 
> > My brother had tremendous suffering for many, many years, with severe
> > Eczema, until he solved the problem by becoming Vegan.
> 
> Good move. I'm Vegetarian for 40+ years, but can't quite make it to Vegan.
> 
> 
> <http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pineapple-pesticide-linked-parkinsons-disease-n477346>
> 
> "A pineapple pesticide that made its way into milk in Hawaii also made 
> its way into men’s brains, and those men were more likely to develop 
> Parkinson’s disease, a new study finds."
> 
> "It’s known the milk in Hawaii was contaminated, probably from the feed 
> given to the cattle."
> 
> 
> My dad drank milk. A lot of it. He was healthy UNTIL quitting smoking, 
> near age 80. He soon developed Parkinsons' Disease.
> 
> "And the study also seems to support a mystifying observation: smokers 
> seem to be protected against Parkinson’s."
> 
> I don't drink milk, AND I smoke. Yay!

A significant proportion of the "protection" against Parkinson's disease is that smokers die younger. Parkinson's is typically diagnosed between 55 and 65 years of age. The incidence is 0.1% for people over 65, 1% for people over 75.

It's clear that something in tobacco smoke protects against it - the exposure I got from my father's smoking makes it less likely that I'll develop the disease - but the diseases that smoking makes more probable have a much higher chance of killing you than Parkinson's. The cure - in this case - is worse than the disease.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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

#464520 — Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

>"
My dad drank milk. A lot of it. He was healthy UNTIL quitting smoking,
near age 80. He soon developed Parkinsons' Disease."

Nice little piece, but I am not going to pick on Parkinson's over it. 

I have an Aunt in her 80s who still drinks milk. My sister's ex drinks milk and he is in his mid 50s. A friend of mie still at least uses milk and he is 77. 

there is an organ in your chest that helps your body digest lactose and whatever, but in most people it dies off and shrivels up when you are in your 30s or whatever. Look it up, I shit you not and this should be all over wiki and many medical sites. It is no secret. 

I doubt that the lack of this organ makes it impossible to digest milk. I drak milk almost to around 50, and it only started bothering me when they started putting that virus in it. 

Now there's soething you WILL NOT find on the net because all references to it were killed. They now put a virus in milk that kills the bacteria that makes it go sours, to give it better shelf life. 

I have no cites for this because they do not make it public but you can do a trest yourself. Levde some milk out. First of all this will take a it longer, but you will see (taste that is) that the milk does not get sour, it gets bitter. That is the feces of the virus. 

As the information on this is so limited, so are any refutations. Just try it. Milk does not get sour like it used to.

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

#464545 — Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 11:01:16 PM UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >"
> My dad drank milk. A lot of it. He was healthy UNTIL quitting smoking,
> near age 80. He soon developed Parkinsons' Disease."
> 
> Nice little piece, but I am not going to pick on Parkinson's over it. 
> 
> I have an Aunt in her 80s who still drinks milk. My sister's ex drinks milk and he is in his mid 50s. A friend of mie still at least uses milk and he is 77. 
> 
> there is an organ in your chest that helps your body digest lactose and whatever, but in most people it dies off and shrivels up when you are in your 30s or whatever.

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

Lactase is generated in the brush border of the small intestine - abdomen rather than chest. The small intestine doesn't ever shrivel up. The ancestral human condition was that it stopped synthesising lactase after weaning - rather before you turn 30. Northern European mostly have a mutation that stops this happening. 

> Look it up, I shit you not and this should be all over wiki and many medical sites. It is no secret.

What you think you know is daft enough that you ought to keep it a secret. 
 
> I doubt that the lack of this organ makes it impossible to digest milk. I drank milk almost to around 50, and it only started bothering me when they started putting that virus in it.

Most Americans of Northern European descent retain the ability to digest lactose all their lives. 
 
> Now there's something you WILL NOT find on the net because all references to it were killed. They now put a virus in milk that kills the bacteria that makes it go sours, to give it better shelf life. 
> 
> I have no cites for this because they do not make it public but you can do a test yourself. Leave some milk out. First of all this will take a it longer, but you will see (taste that is) that the milk does not get sour, it gets bitter. That is the faeces of the virus. 

A virus doesn't have any kind of digestive system, so it never produces faeces.

A virus is just a lump of genetic code that invades a microbe, and hijacks the microbes machinery for reproducing its own genetic material, and uses it to churn out more copies of the virus.

A bacteriopharge could - in theory - be engineered to prey on milk-souring bacteria, but if milk doesn't go sour the way it used to it's more likely because modern pasteurisation and packaging mean that it is now being soured by different microbes than it was when we all were younger.
 
> As the information on this is so limited, so are any refutations. Just try it. Milk does not get sour like it used to.

The stuff you got wrong spelling out what you think might be going on is wrong enough to make you look horribly badly informed. 

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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

#464593 — Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

In article <835af6b1-e798-4571-a7cd-2b660c72726d@googlegroups.com>,
 <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>> Now there's something you WILL NOT find on the net because all references to it were killed. They now put a virus in milk that
>kills the bacteria that makes it go sours, to give it better shelf life. 
>> 
>> I have no cites for this because they do not make it public but you can do a test yourself. Leave some milk out. First of all
>this will take a it longer, but you will see (taste that is) that the milk does not get sour, it gets bitter. That is the faeces
>of the virus. 
>
>A virus doesn't have any kind of digestive system, so it never produces faeces.
>
>A virus is just a lump of genetic code that invades a microbe, and hijacks the microbes machinery for reproducing its own
>genetic material, and uses it to churn out more copies of the virus.
>
>A bacteriopharge could - in theory - be engineered to prey on milk-souring bacteria, but if milk doesn't go sour the way it used
>to it's more likely because modern pasteurisation and packaging mean that it is now being soured by different microbes than it
>was when we all were younger.

That's exactly how it was explained to me back in high school
microbiology class, circa 1970 or so.  It's not new news.

Modern "flash pasteurization" heats milk to a temperature sufficient
to kill almost all of the potentially-disease-causing bacteria
(e.g. E.coli and such), and almost all of the lactic-acid-producing
fermenters which would cause milk to go sour after a few days.

It's not hot enough to kill _all_ of the bacteria, though.  There are
some varieties of bacteria, naturally present in most cow's milk,
which are more heat-resistant, slower-growing, and don't produce
lactic acid as a metabolic byproduct.  Give pasteurized milk enough
time, and it will "go bad" (or "spoil") with a distinctly foul flavor
and smell... that's due to the growth of these pasteurization-
resistant bacteria.

I have no reason to believe that viruses (bacteriophages or otherwise)
are involved.

If you want, you could test pasteurized milk for the presence (or
absence) of active bacteriophages, by simply adding a trace amount of
a lactic-acid-producing fermenter... say, a small amount of live
yoghurt.  Do this, let the room sit at room temperature for a day, and
you'll have plenty of sour - the milk will become something akin to
yoghurt or kefir.  People do this all the time... it is, in fact, the
standard way of home-making yoghurt!

It's possible to buy "ultra-pasteurized" milk, which has been heated
up to a higher temperature, sufficient to kill all of the bacteria.
If sealed in air-tight packages (as is typically done) this
ultra-pasteurized milk can be kept on the shelf, at room temperature,
without spoiling.

I looked up "bacteriophage milk" through the usual Web search
mechanisms.  Almost the first article I found, was an overview of
techniques used to *prevent* bacteriophage infection of milk, during
the production of yogurt and cheese.

It appears that at least some popular strains of lactic-acid-forming
bacteria in commercial use, have "prophages" in their genome... latent
phage viruses, which can reactivate and cause phage outbreaks (and
thus ruin the fermentation process) under certain conditions.

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

#464560 — Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 06:01:11 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

>>"
>My dad drank milk. A lot of it. He was healthy UNTIL quitting smoking,
>near age 80. He soon developed Parkinsons' Disease."
>
>Nice little piece, but I am not going to pick on Parkinson's over it. 
>
>I have an Aunt in her 80s who still drinks milk. My sister's ex drinks milk and he is in his mid 50s. A friend of mie still at least uses milk and he is 77. 
>
>there is an organ in your chest that helps your body digest lactose and whatever, but in most people it dies off and shrivels up when you are in your 30s or whatever. Look it up, I shit you not and this should be all over wiki and many medical sites. It is no secret. 

It's a good thing you're an "expert" on this shit.  

>I doubt that the lack of this organ makes it impossible to digest milk. I drak milk almost to around 50, and it only started bothering me when they started putting that virus in it. 
>
>Now there's soething you WILL NOT find on the net because all references to it were killed. They now put a virus in milk that kills the bacteria that makes it go sours, to give it better shelf life. 
>
>I have no cites for this because they do not make it public but you can do a trest yourself. Levde some milk out. First of all this will take a it longer, but you will see (taste that is) that the milk does not get sour, it gets bitter. That is the feces of the virus. 
>
>As the information on this is so limited, so are any refutations. Just try it. Milk does not get sour like it used to.

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

#464310 — Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:33:41 AM UTC+10, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >"Joerg"  wrote in message news:ep3giiFshunU1@mid.individual.net...
> 
> >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.
> 
> This craze to drink cows milk is the mystery, oh wait a mo... big business 
> trying to extract cash from people, despite the medical ethical concerns, 
> comes to mind. For me, it aggravates my acne, for my twin brother, he is 
> stunningly allergic to it, it could actually kill him.
> 
> Something like 75% of the world is Lactose intolerant. Clearly there are 
> powerful genetic reasons why milk is BAD for you after childhood. 
> Unfortunately, the massive propaganda from big business is just about 
> impossible to defeat.

Milk isn't bad for you after childhood, but having older children compete with younger children for breast milk doesn't maximise the number of potential offspring per mother.

Once northern Europeans started stealing milk from cows, that particular constraint made less sense.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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

#462239

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:01:17 AM UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Raw milk benefits:
> 
> http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01731-5/abstract

Not all that convincing. The "mucky kid" hypothesis proposes that kids living on farms have healthier immune systems because their immune systems get challenged more frequently.

Drinking raw milk is a silly idea, and families that are silly enough to let their kids do it are going to be silly enough to expose them to other threats.

Claiming that having foolish parents makes the kids that survive the experience healthier isn't exactly persuasive evidence that drinking raw milk confers particular benefits that outweigh the obvious risks.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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

#462272

Jamie M wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Raw milk benefits:
>
> http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01731-5/abstract
>
> cheers,
> Jamie
   Another benefit is that the California goons will steal everything 
you have and then put you in the pen for 10-20 years.

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

#462278

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:16:42 PM UTC+10, Robert Baer wrote:
> Jamie M wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Raw milk benefits:
> >
> > http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01731-5/abstract
>
>    Another benefit is that the California goons will steal everything 
> you have and then put you in the pen for 10-20 years.

"Reckless child endangerment"? Sounds perfectly just to me..

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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

#462379

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
>
>cheers,
>Jamie

I assume you have seen this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization#History




-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

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

#462436

On 2017-05-30 18:57, John Larkin 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
>>
>> cheers,
>> Jamie
>
> I assume you have seen this:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization#History
>

Two deaths in 13 years. Whoa! Dangerous! It's all about freedom of 
choice which, in this matter, the French, the Germans and others have 
and we don't. If we are this scared we might as well outlaw office 
chairs because people have been known to fall off, hit their noggin and die.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

#462446

On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:42:58 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2017-05-30 18:57, John Larkin 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
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Jamie
>>
>> I assume you have seen this:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization#History
>>
>
>Two deaths in 13 years. Whoa! Dangerous! It's all about freedom of 
>choice which, in this matter, the French, the Germans and others have 
>and we don't. If we are this scared we might as well outlaw office 
>chairs because people have been known to fall off, hit their noggin and die.


"For example, between 1912 and 1937 some 65,000 people died of
tuberculosis contracted from consuming milk in England and Wales
alone."

Systemic TB is a pretty nasty way to go.



-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

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

#462450

On 2017-05-31 08:47, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:42:58 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-05-30 18:57, John Larkin 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
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> I assume you have seen this:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization#History
>>>
>>
>> Two deaths in 13 years. Whoa! Dangerous! It's all about freedom of
>> choice which, in this matter, the French, the Germans and others have
>> and we don't. If we are this scared we might as well outlaw office
>> chairs because people have been known to fall off, hit their noggin and die.
>
>
> "For example, between 1912 and 1937 some 65,000 people died of
> tuberculosis contracted from consuming milk in England and Wales
> alone."
>
> Systemic TB is a pretty nasty way to go.
>

That was 100 years ago where people died of all kind of what used to be 
called incurable diseases. There are also numerous studies that cast 
serious doubt on that 65,000 from milk exposure claim.

https://www.realmilk.com/safety/risk-of-bovine-tb-from-raw-milk-consumption/

Aside from that farm animals are nowadays very well monitored as to 
their health. I would still drink unpasteurized mild from a reputable 
farmer any day just like I did almost the whole time I studied for my 
degree.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

#462549

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 2:39:51 AM UTC+10, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-05-31 08:47, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:42:58 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2017-05-30 18:57, John Larkin 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
> >>>>
> >>>> cheers,
> >>>> Jamie
> >>>
> >>> I assume you have seen this:
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization#History
> >>>
> >>
> >> Two deaths in 13 years. Whoa! Dangerous! It's all about freedom of
> >> choice which, in this matter, the French, the Germans and others have
> >> and we don't. If we are this scared we might as well outlaw office
> >> chairs because people have been known to fall off, hit their noggin and die.
> >
> >
> > "For example, between 1912 and 1937 some 65,000 people died of
> > tuberculosis contracted from consuming milk in England and Wales
> > alone."
> >
> > Systemic TB is a pretty nasty way to go.
> 
> That was 100 years ago where people died of all kind of what used to be 
> called incurable diseases. There are also numerous studies that cast 
> serious doubt on that 65,000 from milk exposure claim.
> 
> https://www.realmilk.com/safety/risk-of-bovine-tb-from-raw-milk-consumption/

None of that says that you can't get the disease - it's more about how you won't immediately notice it even if you do get it (and start infecting other people).
 
> Aside from that farm animals are nowadays very well monitored as to 
> their health. I would still drink unpasteurized mild from a reputable 
> farmer any day just like I did almost the whole time I studied for my 
> degree.

And you'd still be being just as foolish as you were when you were a student.

Human tuberculosis was still a problem when I was growing up. Tasmania ran a mass chest X-ray program where X-ray machines in big vans were driven from place to place and X-rayed everybody, every few years. If there was a shadow on your lung you spent the next year or so at a TB sanitorium until it killed you or the disease was cured. Streptomycin mostly cured it - slowly.

My younger brother was on it for most of 1962 - the sports master at our school had caught TB during WW2, but it remained quiescent until 1961 before becoming active and infecting about half my brother's class. He'd taught me German in 1959 but didn't manage to give me TB.

Bovine TB in the UK was a problem all the time I lived there - from 1971 to 1993. The UK ministry of Health kept on gassing TB-infect badgers (to the great disgust of the animal welfare crowd) because the badgers kept on passing the bug on to dairy cows.

It's a nasty disease, and the nastiest part is that it stay quiet until your health goes off a bit, and only then runs riot.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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

#462402

On 30/05/2017 6:01 AM, Jamie M wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Raw milk benefits:
>
> http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01731-5/abstract
>
> cheers,
> Jamie


<http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/toddler-dies-four-children-seriously-ill-after-drinking-raw-cows-milk-20141210-124lx8.html>

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

#462459

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 1:01:17 PM UTC-7, Jamie M wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Raw milk benefits:
> 
> http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01731-5/abstract
> 
> cheers,
> Jamie

I contracted brucellosis after drinking raw milk from diseased 
Mexican cattle. Diagnosis was difficult and recovery took 
several months.

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

#464205

Many people have many misconceptions about health, which is probably why we are so unhealthy yet pay more than most of the rest of the world.  

I have done some research, I AM the authority here. If you want cites and quotes we need to go back before the internet into fifty year old shit. 

First of all, your body can make all the vitamins you need, with the possible exception of C. Even that has some room for dispute because people who live in Alaska and live off of whales have only one source we can see of C and that is whale skin, uncooked. You think they sit around at breakfast eating that rubbery slimy shit ? I have my doubts. 

But what your body really needs is minerals. Trace amounts that can be found in the proper proportion in most unrefined sea salt. You don't need much but you definitely need some. 

Don't get enough chromium or vanadium you WILL become diabetic. Don't get enough sulfur you WILL have gall bladder problems. Don't get enough potassium, manganese, magnesium and a few others, the calcium will leach out of your bones and give you kidney stones. 

You all got that ? I am not saying these are the only causes of these disorders, but they are a for sure cause. And any "professional" who tells you otherwise is a liar or fucking stupid. 

It took me a long time to l;earn this shit and you know what the kicker is ? I do not want to live. Not snymore, I hsve had enough. I am simply sick of it, sick of people, the plwnet, all of it. 

So if asnyone wants the benefit of my research and can manage to treat me with at least a little bit of respect then I will share. if sll you want is the dogma the billionaires tell you then your fate is in your own hands. Die well.

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

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

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

csiph-web