Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #462200 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-29 13:01 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-18 08:23 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 105 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
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 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 07:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tflticpm7hpftp9ip8k997nfh7a1o85kct@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462400 |
On Wed, 31 May 2017 17:31:23 +1000, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:
[snip]
>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.
Yep. Early introduction, no allergies.
...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]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 08:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oglpso$1d28$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462352 |
On 30/05/2017 23:31, Joerg 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: >> >>> 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. I suspect it is only partly true. From what I remember of Japanese lacquerware production the majority of Japanese people are sensitive to urushiol monomer too but they have a trick for getting through the painful phase of early exposure. It is only really bad as monomer and it can get you by contact or much worse as a vapour in the air. The latter via smoke can be fatal which is why you shouldn't burn it. It wouldn't surprise me if native Americans have a higher tolerance of urushiol than Europeans. We don't have any native Toxicodendron species. The nastiest one is T. Vernix in the USA but not so common at least in places where humans are likely to venture. The closest relative is Sumac which grows in the Middle East and is used as an ornamental plant in the UK. You have to be careful with raw cashew nuts taken off the tree too as the fruit skin contains traces of urushiol and are steamed to remove the toxic resin. Correct preparation is everything. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashew#Allergy http://www.wisegeek.org/are-raw-cashews-really-poisonous.htm > 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. The guys doing the lacquering and still worse making the lacquer have a very hard time as apprentices unless they are extremely lucky. They apparently grow out of it eventually if they last that long. But once the urushiol lacquer has fully cured in a nice warm humid environment it is just about as inert as any other polymer plastic. The hard high gloss finish in usually in black and bright red is highly prized for rice bowls and trays and has been for a very long time. ISRT about 10% of the population isn't sensitive but more than half the population react at about the same level as for mustard gas. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joseph Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 10:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.1EDF03F200D05FD211E4A42CF@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #462352 |
On May 30, 2017, Joerg wrote (in article <ep6a61Fi6d5U1@mid.individual.net>): > 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. For the record, I’m one of those people who are minimally allergic to poison ivy. At age 2, I was allergic to peanuts, but outgrew it. Anyway, my wife the gardener is quite allergic to poison ivy, so I was researching the issue, and came upon a statement that the American Indians, who in the Northeast (like Boston) lived in forests, solved their poison ivy problem by eating an ivy leaf every Spring, the effect lasting through the growing seasons. I have not been brave enough to try this. Joe Gwinn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 07:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ep82qkFufeoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #462417 |
On 2017-05-31 07:00, Joseph Gwinn wrote: > On May 30, 2017, Joerg wrote > (in article <ep6a61Fi6d5U1@mid.individual.net>): > >> 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. > > For the record, I’m one of those people who are minimally allergic to > poison ivy. At age 2, I was allergic to peanuts, but outgrew it. > > Anyway, my wife the gardener is quite allergic to poison ivy, so I was > researching the issue, and came upon a statement that the American Indians, > who in the Northeast (like Boston) lived in forests, solved their poison ivy > problem by eating an ivy leaf every Spring, the effect lasting through the > growing seasons. I have not been brave enough to try this. > There is also a medically controlled method of administering small doses of urushiol. Not sure whether via syringes or orally but supposedly that allergy reduction method is not as "uneventful" as gradual peanut exposure at young age often is. Native Americans had a lot of tricks which we could have learned from them. For example, they knew sun blocker lotion long before white man did and got skin cancer. Since the Iroquois and Shawnee didn't have CVS stores they made it from sunflower oil. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qj0ricdag4nlcon6rah6nl2ajsogbbr4f2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462270 |
On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:09:07 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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. Maybe 20 years ago, but we have some serious, many european-educated, cheese makers here now. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Food/Cowgirl.jpg And a good cheesemonger will offer hundreds of interesting selections from all over the world. Tillamook cheddar is pretty good. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 22:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ogl89f$ld2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462296 |
John Larkin wrote: > > And a good cheesemonger will offer hundreds of interesting selections > from all over the world. Some have only recorded bazuki music playing in the shop but no cheese at all. But you can shoot them for wasting your time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-01 07:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d64fbdb5-9af5-4dbe-aacb-e084c9179b9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462381 |
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 10:03:34 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > > > > And a good cheesemonger will offer hundreds of interesting selections > > from all over the world. > > Some have only recorded bazuki music playing in the shop but no cheese > at all. > > But you can shoot them for wasting your time. Grin. I've heard there is some on the moon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7rzSslub6U Cheese has gotten better here in the US. (Maybe in tandem with the beer?) We never get a really runny brie, (Saint Andre's is nice.) George H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-01 17:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ogq2lb$2uc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #462555 |
George Herold wrote: > On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 10:03:34 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >> John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> And a good cheesemonger will offer hundreds of interesting >>> selections from all over the world. >> >> Some have only recorded bazuki music playing in the shop but no >> cheese at all. >> >> But you can shoot them for wasting your time. > > Grin. > I've heard there is some on the moon. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7rzSslub6U > > Cheese has gotten better here in the US. (Maybe in tandem with > the beer?) We never get a really runny brie, > (Saint Andre's is nice.) Ooooh, I like it runny. It's a bit runnier than I think you'd like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 18:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3tqric1nt6mq2kqltqiq3uai77am1spffr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462270 |
On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:09:07 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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. You have quite limited experience, obviously. >> 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. Always hovering over their children. >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. "I think" I think it's more that the children aren't allowed to play outside and actually get dirty. >> 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. So a little peanut causes allergy but a lot prevents it? Sounds like thin gruel to me. You do know that peanuts are a choking hazard?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f0e53f1-a742-469e-93ce-fdce2db16bdf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #462345 |
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 8:05:51 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:09:07 +0100, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >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. > > You have quite limited experience, obviously. > > >> 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. > > Always hovering over their children. > > >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. > > "I think" > > I think it's more that the children aren't allowed to play outside and > actually get dirty. > > >> 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. > > So a little peanut causes allergy but a lot prevents it? Sounds like > thin gruel to me. You do know that peanuts are a choking hazard? "Desensitisation" is a technique of exposing allergic kids to progressing increasing amounts of allergen. It's a slow process, typically taking six months or more, and starts with very lose doses of allergen. https://www.allergy.org.au/patients/allergy-treatment/immunotherapy If you are allergic to peanut butter, a little can provoke an allergic reaction. Persistent exposures to progressively increasing doses can make the allergy go away. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 20:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <LoadnW1O0tORo93EnZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #462208 |
>"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. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 12:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <cd5e8ac6-d031-418b-8894-dbf97cf15aee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #464258 |
Den tirsdag den 13. juni 2017 kl. 21.33.41 UTC+2 skrev Kevin Aylward: > >"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. Europeans started getting lactose tolerant many thousand years ago, I don't think big business was a thing back then. high in calories, protein, d-vitamin and calcium and in a relatively constant supply, sounds like a pretty good source of nutrients especially where there is not so much sunlight
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 17:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <kqn0kcd058rgk7jqt0epm2t0adja2rcfa6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #464258 |
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:33:31 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> 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. ...and the rest of us should give a shit about your problems, exactly why? >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. Utter nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 21:23 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <46mdnZqW18GwBtzEnZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #464272 |
>wrote in message news:kqn0kcd058rgk7jqt0epm2t0adja2rcfa6@4ax.com... On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:33:31 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> 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. >...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? 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. 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. 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. I guess your disparagement says a lot about you, not me. >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. >Utter nonsense. What bit? Have you actually goggled to get the facts on Lactose intolerance? http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/what-is-lactose-intolerance "...their findings proved otherwise. Approximately 70 percent of African Americans, 90 percent of Asian Americans, 53 percent of Mexican Americans, and 74 percent of Native Americans were lactose intolerant..." or https://www.undergroundhealth.com/world-lactose-intolerant/ There are many independent sources. Its a well known fact. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 18:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <91f3kcptiv4kb6pfg2g8mntg3vk9kjtmh7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #464409 |
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:23:08 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: >>wrote in message news:kqn0kcd058rgk7jqt0epm2t0adja2rcfa6@4ax.com... > >On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:33:31 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" ><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> 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. > >>...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. > >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. >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. > >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? > >I guess your disparagement says a lot about you, not me. The fact that you want to ban milk because of *your* problem, says everything there is to say about you. >>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. > >>Utter nonsense. > >What bit? Have you actually goggled to get the facts on Lactose intolerance? > >http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/what-is-lactose-intolerance > >"...their findings proved otherwise. Approximately 70 percent of African >Americans, 90 percent of Asian Americans, 53 percent of Mexican Americans, >and 74 percent of Native Americans were lactose intolerant..." The fact that you think it has something to do with people who don't have a lactose problem makes your silly statistics utter nonsense. >https://www.undergroundhealth.com/world-lactose-intolerant/ > >There are many independent sources. Its a well known fact. Facts used without context are utter nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 20:34 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <q5mdnZznh6v_fN_EnZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #464422 |
>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. 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. > >>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? >>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.. > >>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. Again, this NG is not your personal property. If you don't care, don't reply. > >>I guess your disparagement says a lot about you, not me. >The fact that you want to ban milk because of *your* problem, says >everything there is to say about you. Where did I say, or even infer that notion? You just make this up as you go along don't you. >>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. > >>Utter nonsense. > >What bit? Have you actually goggled to get the facts on Lactose >intolerance? > >http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/what-is-lactose-intolerance > >>"...their findings proved otherwise. Approximately 70 percent of African >>Americans, 90 percent of Asian Americans, 53 percent of Mexican Americans, >>and 74 percent of Native Americans were lactose intolerant..." >The fact that you think it has something to do with people who don't >have a lactose problem makes your silly statistics utter nonsense. You just make this up as you go along don't you. Where did I make any claim about what lactose intolerance meant or who I was referring to? >https://www.undergroundhealth.com/world-lactose-intolerant/ > >There are many independent sources. Its a well known fact. >Facts used without context are utter nonsense. "75% of the worlds population is lactose intolerance", doesn't need any context. Its a fact. One that you were, apparently, not aware of. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 19:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <hi56kch6hiedng3lj6mlqdlsjbfgjq9nf2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #464587 |
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. > >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. >> >>>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? >>>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. >> >>>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? >Again, this NG is not your personal property. If you don't care, don't >reply. You really are one stupid ass. Try reading what *YOU* write, sometime. > >> >>>I guess your disparagement says a lot about you, not me. > >>The fact that you want to ban milk because of *your* problem, says >>everything there is to say about you. > >Where did I say, or even infer that notion? > >You just make this up as you go along don't you. > >>>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. >> >>>Utter nonsense. >> >>What bit? Have you actually goggled to get the facts on Lactose >>intolerance? >> >>http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/what-is-lactose-intolerance >> >>>"...their findings proved otherwise. Approximately 70 percent of African >>>Americans, 90 percent of Asian Americans, 53 percent of Mexican Americans, >>>and 74 percent of Native Americans were lactose intolerant..." > >>The fact that you think it has something to do with people who don't >>have a lactose problem makes your silly statistics utter nonsense. > >You just make this up as you go along don't you. > >Where did I make any claim about what lactose intolerance meant or who I was >referring to? > >>https://www.undergroundhealth.com/world-lactose-intolerant/ >> >>There are many independent sources. Its a well known fact. > >>Facts used without context are utter nonsense. > >"75% of the worlds population is lactose intolerance", doesn't need any >context. Its a fact. One that you were, apparently, not aware of. > > >-- Kevin Aylward >http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice >http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 08:05 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <mKednRggwI9MSdnEnZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #464602 |
-----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? > >>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. Where was it ever claimed that that you had an intention of interfering in my life, or me with yours in any way whatsoever? You appear to have this inner voice in your head reading to you in lieu of the actual posts. I think the problem is that you are assuming much not in evidence. >> >>>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, apparently, you don't though. Little of your comments make any sense to what was actually posted. >>>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? Its relevant because, err.. because...the title of this thread includes "milk" and "health". >> >>>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. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 10:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <0edakcdj2g83u2diuopnflnv8g1a317lm4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #464798 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 16:53 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study |
| Message-ID | <jbqdnf_-RsP8zdjEnZ2dnUU7-dnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #464815 |
>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: >> >>>>>>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! Totally twilight zone mate. You do surely make this up as you go along. Where on this earth is there even any hint that I wrote anything that could be interpreted as being personally offended? You are really embarrassing yourself. Where did I say I could not tolerate milk? You are completely confused. I said: 1 75% of the world are intolerant to lactose 2 Milk aggravates my acne. I indeed still consume milk products, in moderation, despite it aggravating my acne. I might even have chocolate cake, or a pizza from time to time. Alcohol is even worse for my acne, but I also, on occasions have a Sothern Comfort, Guinness or Tia Maria. I suggest that you undergo a course in logic and deductive reasoning. >>>> >>>>>>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. I suggest that you undergo a course in logic and deductive reasoning. >>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. Oh... >>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. Oh... >>>>>>>>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. Ahmmm... and this follows from what, exactly? >>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>> Oh dear... >>>>>> >>>>>>>>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. Whether or not I actually like milk, is not a fact that has been presented by me in any of these posts. I suggest that you undergo a course in logic and deductive reasoning. 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. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web