OT farmed and dangerous

[Jamie M]

Hi,

A wonderful Canadian farmer is being epically harassed by the out of
control Canadian Food Inspection Agency! Really unbelievable that is
happening! I drink raw milk and know how healthy it is compared to
pasteurized milk, so this seems even more surreal to see the government
killing her healthy livestock and taking her to court!

http://www.gofundme.com/FarmedandDangerous

cheers,
Jamie

[Martin Brown]

On 20/05/2013 19:39, Jamie M wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A wonderful Canadian farmer is being epically harassed by the out of
> control Canadian Food Inspection Agency! Really unbelievable that is

They are undoubtedly overreacting to scrapie. It is interesting though
that it is so rare in Canada. I had assumed it was endemic everywhere
that sheep are farmed (it was the fact that scrapie was common and did
not jump the species barrier that made the UK complacent about BSE).

Looking at New Zealand with lots of sheep it is also rare there. It has
been endemic in the UK for about 250 years and whilst it harms sheep and
goats has never been considered a threat to human health.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/ahvla-en/disease-control/notifiable/scrapie/

BSE has more or less been eliminated although premature elimination of
the testing facilities to save money may well allow a resurgence.

> happening! I drink raw milk and know how healthy it is compared to
> pasteurized milk, so this seems even more surreal to see the government
> killing her healthy livestock and taking her to court!
>
> http://www.gofundme.com/FarmedandDangerous
>
> cheers,
> Jamie

I don't mind unpasteurised cheese, but drinking unpasteurised milk is
just asking for trouble with bovine TB and other milk borne infections.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Gib Bogle]

On 21/05/2013 6:58 a.m., Martin Brown wrote:

> They are undoubtedly overreacting to scrapie. It is interesting though
> that it is so rare in Canada. I had assumed it was endemic everywhere
> that sheep are farmed (it was the fact that scrapie was common and did
> not jump the species barrier that made the UK complacent about BSE).
>
> Looking at New Zealand with lots of sheep it is also rare there. It has
> been endemic in the UK for about 250 years and whilst it harms sheep and
> goats has never been considered a threat to human health.
>
> http://www.defra.gov.uk/ahvla-en/disease-control/notifiable/scrapie/

Prions are bizarre.

[Tim Williams]

Raw milk laws are a big issue here in Wisconsin, as you might imagine.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

"Jamie M" <jmo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:kndql5$ha0$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:28:37 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tmor...@charter.net> wrote:

>Raw milk laws are a big issue here in Wisconsin, as you might imagine.
>
>Tim

Raw milk does kill people now and then.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 09:14:20 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:28:37 -0500, "Tim Williams"
> <tmor...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >Raw milk laws are a big issue here in Wisconsin, as you might imagine.
> >

> Raw milk does kill people now and then.

A milk-borne infection might explain Jamie's cognitive deficits. There's no question that the bugs that can survive in unpasteurised milk can be healthy, and can thrive in the bodies of people who are silly enough to drink it.

http://infectiousdiseases.about.com/od/g/a/milkborne.htm

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jamie]

Talk about defication...



Jamie

[Bill Sloman]

I think he meant "defecation" (which I'd spell "defaecation"). People who drink unpasteurised milk can find themselves busy with that. Jamie's posting habits might be be seen as falling into that category too, but it would be unfair to blame that on unpasteurised milk - he might have been born dim, rather than having had dimness thrust upon him.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Martin Brown]

They are in effect a form of artificial life infectious agent that
occurs spontaneously in nature from time to time and exploits a niche
that intensive farming has created. It is in essence a brain protein
folded the wrong way that is a catalyst to make more copies of itself.
The BSE infective agent proved to be remarkably resilient.

Enforced cannibalism of cows with the remains of earlier infected
animals and a cavalier attitude towards the risk to the human food chain
was responsible for allowing it to get out of hand in the UK. The weak
point was later identified as lowering the length of time and processing
temperature of animal feed rendering to save money. They really went
overboard to put the junk into junk food and paid the price.

The MAFF argument was that it had been endemic in sheep for 250 years
and had never apparently done anybody any harm... You can find photos of
the hapless Mr Gummer force feeding his granddaughter a burger.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/369625.stm

"Perfectly safe" gained a whole new meaning in the UK after Mad Cow
disease became a major problem and young people started dying of it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 17:01:26 UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 20/05/2013 23:09, Gib Bogle wrote:
> > On 21/05/2013 6:58 a.m., Martin Brown wrote:
> >
> >> They are undoubtedly overreacting to scrapie. It is interesting though
> >> that it is so rare in Canada. I had assumed it was endemic everywhere
> >> that sheep are farmed (it was the fact that scrapie was common and did
> >> not jump the species barrier that made the UK complacent about BSE).
> >>
> >> Looking at New Zealand with lots of sheep it is also rare there. It has
> >> been endemic in the UK for about 250 years and whilst it harms sheep and
> >> goats has never been considered a threat to human health.
> >>
> >> http://www.defra.gov.uk/ahvla-en/disease-control/notifiable/scrapie
> >

> > Prions are bizarre.
>
> They are in effect a form of artificial life infectious agent that
> occurs spontaneously in nature from time to time and exploits a niche
> that intensive farming has created. It is in essence a brain protein
> folded the wrong way that is a catalyst to make more copies of itself.\>
> The BSE infective agent proved to be remarkably resilient.
>
> Enforced cannibalism of cows with the remains of earlier infected
> animals and a cavalier attitude towards the risk to the human food chain
> was responsible for allowing it to get out of hand in the UK. The weak
> point was later identified as lowering the length of time and processing
> temperature of animal feed rendering to save money. They really went
> overboard to put the junk into junk food and paid the price.
>
> The MAFF argument was that it had been endemic in sheep for 250 years
> and had never apparently done anybody any harm... You can find photos of
> the hapless Mr Gummer force feeding his granddaughter a burger.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/369625.stm

Wikipedia identifies her as his four-year-old daughter Cordelia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gummer

and your articles shows him tucking into the hamburger too.

> "Perfectly safe" gained a whole new meaning in the UK after Mad Cow
> disease became a major problem and young people started dying of it.

Not many, but even one is too many.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Mike Perkins]

That doesn't explain why countries that didn't use animal tissue in
cattle feed also had relatively high levels of BSE. Although such
animal feed were initially blamed there was a strong correlation with
mineral deficiencies, and with organophosphates during pregnancy.
Furthermore, the UK tested every likely anmal whereas other countries
tested on a heard, and once determined there was an infection on one
animal the whole heard was slaughtered, also removing other likely
infected animals from the statistics. As a result the UK had seemingly
much higher rates of infection.

> The MAFF argument was that it had been endemic in sheep for 250 years
> and had never apparently done anybody any harm... You can find
> photos of the hapless Mr Gummer force feeding his granddaughter a
> burger.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/369625.stm

I recall it well.

> "Perfectly safe" gained a whole new meaning in the UK after Mad Cow
> disease became a major problem and young people started dying of it.

Nevertheless, the UK, with its systematic destruction of infected
cattle, removal of dubious feeding practices and with an age limit of
just 18 months for animals to be slaughtered now means the UK has
probably the safest beef in the world.

--
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

[Jamie M]

Really funny Bill ;) to let you know I didn't start drink raw milk
until approximately 1.5 years ago, except as a child I drank it growing
up on a farm. If you would like to read more, I would start with GAPS
info. It is gut and psychology syndrome, which shows how the state of
your gut has an impact on your psychology, backed up by many scientific
studies. If you read Scientific American you can see some recent
(within last year) articles on GAPS and linking it to diseases such as
autism. Raw milk fermented kefir (like yogurt) is a good way to
improve the health of your gut, also pasture raised beef bone broth is
part of the GAPS intro diet to re-line the gut and make it suitable for
new bacteria to grow.

cheers,
Jamie

[Piltdown Man]

On 05/21/2013 12:48 PM, Jamie Milk Boy wrote:
>
> Really funny Bill ;) to let you know I didn't start drink raw milk
> until approximately 1.5 years ago, except as a child I drank it growing
> up on a farm.

Mmmm... do you put warm pus on your cereal too?

[Jamie M]

No I drink it straight.

cheers,
Jamie

[Bill Sloman]

I read Scientific American for some twenty years, but gave up on it sometime in the 1990's when the balance between informing and entertaining it's readers shifted towards the entertainment end of the scale.

It's certainly true that nature of your gut bacteria is important to your health. It's less obvious that you improve the ecology of your gut by drinking unpasteurised milk, or raw milk fermented kefir or pasture-raised beef bone broth, no matter how much interest the producers of these products have in getting more gullible consumers to buy more of them.

It's not as if we've been drinking cow's milk or eating beef for all that long - western adults have evolved a capacity to tolerate milk, but the original human stock couldn't, as adults.

There are schemes for correcting gut bacteria populations that do appear to work, but they do depend on explicitly finding known-good gut bacteria and putting them where they'd do some good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_bacteriotherapy

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jamie M]

Hi Bill,

That idea of just putting in new bacteria sounds good, but its not
going to help long term since the bacteria types and populations change
based on what you are eating. If you eat lots of processed carbs then
your gut bacteria will be different than if you eat a high fat diet.
The whole idea of "designer gut bacteria" is flawed and just an excuse
of for more science research funding, really all it takes is the
correct diet, mixed with pro-biotic foods.

cheers,
Jamie



>

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 10:25:30 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 5:19 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 05:48:18 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> >> On 5/20/2013 7:44 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 12:23:39 UTC+10, Jamie wrote:
> >>>> Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 09:14:20 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:28:37 -0500, "Tim Williams
> >>>>>> <tmor...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Raw milk laws are a big issue here in Wisconsin, as you might
> >>>>>>> imagine.

<snip>

> >> Really funny Bill ;) to let you know I didn't start drink raw milk
> >> until approximately 1.5 years ago, except as a child I drank it growing
> >> up on a farm. If you would like to read more, I would start with GAPS
> >> info. It is gut and psychology syndrome, which shows how the state of
> >> your gut has an impact on your psychology, backed up by many scientific
> >> studies. If you read Scientific American you can see some recent
> >> (within last year) articles on GAPS and linking it to diseases such as
> >> autism. Raw milk fermented kefir (like yogurt) is a good way to
> >> improve the health of your gut, also pasture raised beef bone broth is
> >> part of the GAPS intro diet to re-line the gut and make it suitable for
> >> new bacteria to grow.
> >
> > I read Scientific American for some twenty years, but gave up on it
> > sometime in the 1990's when the balance between informing and

> > entertainingit's readers shifted towards the entertainment end of the

> > scale.
> >
> > It's certainly true that nature of your gut bacteria is important to your
> > health. It's less obvious that you
> > improve the ecology of your gut by drinking unpasteurised milk, or raw
> > milk fermented kefir or pasture-raised
> > beef bone broth, no matter how much interest the producers of these
> > products have in getting more gullible consumers to buy more of them.
> >
> > It's not as if we've been drinking cow's milk or eating beef for all that
> > long - western adults have evolved a capacity to tolerate milk, but the
> > original human stock couldn't, as adults.
> >
> > There are schemes for correcting gut bacteria populations that do appear to > > work, but they do depend on explicitly finding known-good gut bacteria and > > putting them where they'd do some good.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_bacteriotherapy
>

> That idea of just putting in new bacteria sounds good, but it's not

> going to help long term since the bacteria types and populations change
> based on what you are eating.

Clinical trials tell a different story.

> If you eat lots of processed carbs then
> your gut bacteria will be different than if you eat a high fat diet.

Very likely. But if you've started off with a population of the right bacteria, you may still end up with a tolerably healthy gut ecology, which might not be the case if certain key bacteria were missing.

> The whole idea of "designer gut bacteria" is flawed

Fecal bacteriotherapy doesn't depend of "designed" gut bacteria, but just takes a sample from a healthy gut and introduces them into a less healthy gut.

> and just an excuse for more science research funding,

Clinical trials are a form of research. Finding out more about the way the ecology of the gut bacteria works would seem to be a sensible idea, but if you think that you already know the answer - as you seem to be convinced that you do - it might be seen as wasted effort.

> really all it takes is the correct diet, mixed with pro-biotic foods.

For which your clinical evidence is?

The people who make the "pro-biotic foods" will fund all the research that they find necessary to support their point of view, thus saving the scientific agencies from having to pay for it, let alone the pesky necessity of making sure that the research is done right.

No doubt the pro-biotic food industry has a herd of tame "researchers" who spend their time wearing white coats in TV studios, telling the story that you've swallowed hook, line and sinker - definitely a pro-biotic diet, albeit with a higher male bovine fecal content than most would be willing to tolerate.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jamie M]

Hi Bill,

I think we agree more than we disagree, if you read between the lines a
bit so there's not much to argue about. I don't buy any probiotic foods
though by the way, so there is no industry I'm supporting. I make my
probiotic foods, or it makes itself - fermented milk kefir, kombucha,
and sometimes real sauerkraut or fermented real ketchup. There's no
monopoly or $ cost to make probiotics, anyone can do it. The probiotic
pills do cost money, but they can be put in milk and turned into yogurt
if you want to experiment (I did!) The gut flora transplant therapy
will cost money too. Also everyone has unique gut flora like a
signature passed down through family lines, and its not just the
transplanted material that is important, it is the actual lining of the
gut itself that is important, you can't just take a sample of healthy
gut bacteria and expect it to "take" in the new gut. The lining has to
be able to support the large amount of bacteria required for a healthy
gut. This requires preparation which is what the GAPS intro diet is
for. It uses foods that prepare the gut lining to be a fertile growing
area for bacteria and at the same time probiotics are taken. These can
be purchased for a short period of time during the GAPS intro diet, or
they can also be made, just like yogurt. Anyway I will agree with you
that there is an industry around probiotics in pill form, but there is a
lot of science behind this stuff too. Some areas of people's gut are
barren of good bacteria due to damaged linings, this causes leaky gut
syndrome which allows toxins from the gut to go into the blood where
they have to be dealt with by the liver. Its invisible but causes a
huge amount of problems for people. Transplanted bacteria could be good
in addition to the GAPS intro diet I will agree, but I don't think its
even necessary.

Also there are many more prokaryote bacterial cell in the human body
than eukaryote cells. I think its time to redefine what a human is, and
realize the bacteria cells outnumber human DNA based cells 10 to 1
inside our own bodies on average! Maybe it is time to realize they are
the boss of our health.

cheers,
Jamie

[Bill Sloman]

> >>> entertaining it's readers shifted towards the entertainment end of the

> > Clinical trials are a form of research. Finding out more about the way the > > ecology of the gut bacteria works would seem to be a sensible idea, but if > > you think that you already know the answer - as you seem to be convinced
> > that you do - it might be seen as wasted effort.
> >
> >> really all it takes is the correct diet, mixed with pro-biotic foods.
> >
> > For which your clinical evidence is?
> >
> > The people who make the "pro-biotic foods" will fund all the research that > > they find necessary to support their
> > point of view, thus saving the scientific agencies from having to pay
> > for it, let alone the pesky necessity of making sure that the research is
> > done right.
> >
> > No doubt the pro-biotic food industry has a herd of tame "researchers" who > > spend their time wearing white coats
> > in TV studios, telling the story that you've swallowed hook, line and
> > sinker - definitely a pro-biotic diet, albeit
> > with a higher male bovine fecal content than most would be willing to
> > tolerate.
>

> I think we agree more than we disagree, if you read between the lines a
> bit so there's not much to argue about. I don't buy any probiotic foods
> though by the way, so there is no industry I'm supporting. I make my
> probiotic foods, or it makes itself - fermented milk kefir, kombucha,
> and sometimes real sauerkraut or fermented real ketchup. There's no
> monopoly or $ cost to make probiotics, anyone can do it. The probiotic
> pills do cost money, but they can be put in milk and turned into yogurt
> if you want to experiment (I did!) The gut flora transplant therapy
> will cost money too. Also everyone has unique gut flora like a
> signature passed down through family lines,

Everybody may have a different mix of gut bacteria, and we may all have our own occasional unique species of bacteria, but all the gut bacteria are doing the same kind of job in the same kind of environment, and the broad content is much the same.

> and its not just the
> transplanted material that is important, it is the actual lining of the
> gut itself that is important, you can't just take a sample of healthy
> gut bacteria and expect it to "take" in the new gut.

The clinical trials say that it does.

> The lining has to
> be able to support the large amount of bacteria required for a healthy
> gut.

How? The gut lining renews itself every 36 hours - the cells of the gut lining are the fastest-dividing cells in the body. They don't exist to service the bacteria in the gut, but to transfer the nutrients available in the gut into your blood-stream. They don't last long because an environment that breaks down
ingested food into accessible molecules is rough on every kind of cell exposed to it.

> This requires preparation which is what the GAPS intro diet is
> for.

Twaddle.

> It uses foods that prepare the gut lining to be a fertile growing
> area for bacteria and at the same time probiotics are taken. These can
> be purchased for a short period of time during the GAPS intro diet, or
> they can also be made, just like yogurt. Anyway I will agree with you
> that there is an industry around probiotics in pill form, but there is a
> lot of science behind this stuff too.

The psychology of extracting money from the gullible.

> Some areas of people's gut are
> barren of good bacteria due to damaged linings, this causes leaky gut
> syndrome which allows toxins from the gut to go into the blood where
> they have to be dealt with by the liver. Its invisible but causes a
> huge amount of problems for people. Transplanted bacteria could be good
> in addition to the GAPS intro diet I will agree, but I don't think its
> even necessary.

The clinical trials beg to differ.

> Also there are many more prokaryote bacterial cell in the human body
> than eukaryote cells.

Perfectly true, but not exactly significant.

> I think its time to redefine what a human is, and
> realize the bacteria cells outnumber human DNA based cells 10 to 1
> inside our own bodies on average! Maybe it is time to realize they are
> the boss of our health.

They aren't "the boss" of our health. They can make a mess of our health - crudely, as the cholera bug does, or more subtly by not supplying crucial nutrients - but our guts are where we extract sugars, fats and amino acids from food to fuel our system and rebuild worn-out bits. Trace nutrients complicate the picture a bit, but it's essentially a tear-down and rebuild operation, and the gut bacteria don't contribute to the rebuilding part.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jamie M]

On 5/22/2013 1:30 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
...

Hi,

The gut is a lot more than just a tear-down and rebuild operation,
scientists who study it call it the second brain as it has an enormous
amount of neurons and neurotransmitters, and is like a brain and is
connected to the other brain in our body, this is definitely a
psychological link that should be taken into account as well as the
general health of the gut and the food you put into it. There is a
reason for "gut instinct" there is a consciousness in the gut attached
to the main brain too. Gut instinct can be ignored or suppressed by
reductionist thinking or stress and poor diet, many pharmaceuticals also
damage the gut's neurons I am sure.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gut-second-brain

Also 36 hour gut lining regeneration time is plenty of time for a
bacterial colony to repopulate since bacteria reproduce much faster
than even the gut lining cells.

By the way part of the reason bone broth is used in the GAPS intro diet
is it rebuilds the mucosa lining on the gut wall for new bacteria to
colonize.

I agree with you about the commercialization of probiotics, but its
nothing compared to the commercialization of pharmaceuticals or GMO's.


cheers,
Jamie

[lang...@fonz.dk]

On May 21, 4:44 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 12:23:39 UTC+10, Jamie  wrote:
> > Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 09:14:20 UTC+10, John Larkin  wrote:
> > >>On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:28:37 -0500, "Tim Williams"
> > >><tmoran...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>Raw milk laws are a big issue here in Wisconsin, as you might imagine.
>
> > >>Raw milk does kill people now and then.
>
> > > A milk-borne infection might explain Jamie's cognitive deficits. There's no question that the bugs that can survive in unpasteurised milk can be healthy, and can thrive in the bodies of people who are silly enough to drink it.
>
> > >http://infectiousdiseases.about.com/od/g/a/milkborne.htm
>
> > Talk about defication...
>
> I think he meant "defecation" (which I'd spell "defaecation"). People who drink
> unpasteurised milk can find themselves busy with that.

maybe a "fecal microbiota transplantation" will fix that :P

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/10/bacterial-cocktail-id-may-lead.html

-Lasse

[Bill Sloman]

Evidence?.

> scientists who study it call it the second brain as it has an enormous
> amount of neurons and neurotransmitters, and is like a brain

How? Is there any evidence that the neurons remember anything. We more or less know what they are detecting and signalling, and it's basically process-control information for the process of food extraction and waste elimination. This make require intensive local computation but doesn't involve cognition.

> and is
> connected to the other brain in our body, this is definitely a
> psychological link that should be taken into account

Why? Anxiety was widely assumed to give you stomach ulcers before helicobacter pylori was discovered and its significance appreciated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori

Note that ingesting live yogurt - or more specifically " Lactobacillus-and-Bifidobacterium-containing yogurt (AB-yogurt)" makes life harder for any helicobacter pylori which may be present.

> as well as the
> general health of the gut and the food you put into it. There is a
> reason for "gut instinct" there is a consciousness in the gut attached
> to the main brain too.

More mystical twaddle. Serotonin backwash from the gut processors may shift the operating point of the nervous system as a whole, but it isn't gut-located cognition or anything remotely like it.

> Gut instinct can be ignored or suppressed by
> reductionist thinking or stress and poor diet, many pharmaceuticals also
> damage the gut's neurons I am sure.
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gut-second-brain

You are reading rather more into that article than it actually says. The Scientific American is doing it's usual trick of slanting the report to make it more interesting to the mystery-fancying doofus.

> Also 36 hour gut lining regeneration time is plenty of time for a
> bacterial colony to repopulate since bacteria reproduce much faster
> than even the gut lining cells.

So what?

> By the way part of the reason bone broth is used in the GAPS intro diet
> is it rebuilds the mucosa lining on the gut wall for new bacteria to
> colonize.

It may help the gut lining to churn out more mucus - which is what it is doing all the time if it isn't actually being damaged by helicobacter pylori and other - equally dubious - minority members of the gut bacterial ecology.

> I agree with you about the commercialization of probiotics, but its
> nothing compared to the commercialization of pharmaceuticals or GMO's.

Pharmaceuticals are "commercialised" because that's the way we've chosen - or rather the US has chosen - to develop our pharmaceuticals and cover the cost of
paying for their development and certification. As usual, the free market system has been very productive, but hasn't produced all the products an ideal system would have produced, and has wasted a lot of time and money on producing trivial variations that make money without doing much to improve human health.

Genetically modified organisms haven't yet been commercialised to the same extent - the business is still getting under way. As with pharmaceuticals, we need to find a way of harnessing the free market dynamic to create what we need while preventing too much money being wasted on profitable dead ends.

The probiotic industry, such as it is, is simply a confidence trick, exploiting the minor health benefits of yogurt, bone broth and the like with a layer of mystical clap-trap aimed a letting them sell cheap products at inflated prices to people who don't actually need them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jamie M]

Hi,

So I guess you don't have a poster ready for the global march on
Monsanto coming up on May 25th 2013? Gonna be a big protest should
be fun.

cheers,
Jamie

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 23 May 2013 13:02:10 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 6:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Thursday, 23 May 2013 05:35:04 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> >> On 5/22/2013 1:30 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >> ...

<snip>

> > The probiotic industry, such as it is, is simply a confidence trick,
> > exploiting the minor health benefits of yogurt,
> > bone broth and the like with a layer of mystical clap-trap aimed a
> > letting them sell cheap products at inflated prices
> > to people who don't actually need them.
> >
> Hi,
>
> So I guess you don't have a poster ready for the global march on
> Monsanto coming up on May 25th 2013? Gonna be a big protest should
> be fun.

I trained as a chemist - and got a Ph.D in the subject. Both my parents had bachelor's degrees in chemistry. Monsanto strikes me as part of our cultural heritage. They aren't perfect, and the free market approach to genetically modified seeds urgently needs government regulation, but protesting about Monsanto is rather missing the point - the US needs to reign in all its big corporations, not just Monsanto, and modify its political system which is currently over-susceptible to their well-financed lobbyists and insufficiently careful of the interests of the 99% who can't buy the same sort of influence.

Monsanto isn't perfect, but it isn't a Union Carbide with a Bhopal on its conscience.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jamie M]

> Monsanto isn't perfect, but it isn't a Union Carbide with a Bhopal on its conscience.\

Hi,

Monsanto's actions are 1000x worse than that disaster, also its a for
profit corporation, believing it cares about humans or nature is a
big mistake, people are starting to realize how evil Monsanto is.

There is no cultural heritage in regards to corporations like Monsanto,
just money and control of nature.

cheers,
Jamie


>

[Bill Sloman]

In 2001 William S. Knowles of Monsanto and Ryōji Noyori won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2001/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Standish_Knowles

> just money and control of nature.

Money is what US corporations are designed to earn. Control of nature is what science is about - you've got to understand what you are working on before you can control it, and once you do the control is more or less inevitable. Agent Orange wasn't Monsanto's most admirable product, but they produced it for perfectly patriotic reasons. The whole US approach in Vietnam was just as stupid
as it was in Irak, but that' scarcely Monsanto's fault - they were just following orders ...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Martin Brown]

On 23/05/2013 06:20, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 9:38 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On Thursday, 23 May 2013 13:02:10 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2013 6:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 23 May 2013 05:35:04 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/2013 1:30 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> The probiotic industry, such as it is, is simply a confidence trick,
>>>> exploiting the minor health benefits of yogurt,
>>>> bone broth and the like with a layer of mystical clap-trap aimed a
>>>> letting them sell cheap products at inflated prices
>>>> to people who don't actually need them.

This much is true. The rich worried well are a fantastic market for
vastly overpriced Organic(TM) food and other fripperies. Organic(TM)
peanut butter without preservatives is one of the most dangerous things
you can eat if it isn't stored properly since it almost invariably
harbours spores for cancer causing alflotoxin generating fungi.

But it is Organic(TM) and so sells for a vastly inflated price.

>>>
>>> So I guess you don't have a poster ready for the global march on
>>> Monsanto coming up on May 25th 2013? Gonna be a big protest should
>>> be fun.
>>
>> I trained as a chemist - and got a Ph.D in the subject. Both my
>> parents had bachelor's degrees in chemistry.
>
> Monsanto strikes me as part of our cultural heritage. They aren't
> perfect, and the free market approach to
> genetically modified seeds urgently needs government regulation, but
> protesting about Monsanto is rather missing
> the point - the US needs to reign in all its big corporations, not just
> Monsanto, and modify its political system

Monsanto is a particularly bad example of US gerrit-down-yer-necks
industrial agriculture deliberately wiping out genetic diversity and
forcing massive over reliance on their chemicals whilst claiming to do
the opposite. The crass way that farmers have misused the technology now
means that we also have plenty of RoundupReady weeds as well.

Rape (US canola) is a particular nuisance as it regularly escapes into
the verges and then outcrosses with various related weed species.

>
> which is currently over-susceptible to their well-financed lobbyists and
> insufficiently careful of the interests of
>
> the 99% who can't buy the same sort of influence.

America has the finest politicians that money can buy and large numbers
of lobbyists wandering round with bags of money and hospitality trips.
UK politicians are much cheaper but a lot less corrupt - their dodgy
ambitions seem to be fiddling moat cleaning and duck houses on expenses!

>>
>> Monsanto isn't perfect, but it isn't a Union Carbide with a Bhopal on
>> its conscience.\

Bhopal was in part a local zoning problem. People should not have been
living so close to a dangerous chemical plant. The global chemical
industry has always done its nastiest chemistry in countries where
regulation is slack and bribes effective. Think Seveso in Italy and now
places you never hear about in the former satellites of Russia.

>
> Hi,
>
> Monsanto's actions are 1000x worse than that disaster, also its a for
> profit corporation, believing it cares about humans or nature is a
> big mistake, people are starting to realize how evil Monsanto is.

People in Europe have been aware ever since Monsanto ruined the GM
industry by forcing GM Soya onto the market in a cack handed way. The
consumer backlash here has been against all GM technology and was a gift
to the rabid greens who want us back in the stone age.

>
> There is no cultural heritage in regards to corporations like Monsanto,
> just money and control of nature.

Like all US mega-corporations they *only* care about the bottom line.
They all do it by global tax avoidance as well.

Googles slogan "Don't be evil" looks fantastically ironic as their
intricate network of tax avoiding trickery gradually gets unpicked.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/16/google-told-by-mp-you-do-do-evil

At an abstract level what they have done is very clever using some of
the best minds on the planet to outwit global tax authorities, but it
can hardly be considered socially responsible to design your corporate
structure to obtain sales of many billions and pay less than 0.1% tax.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[John Larkin]

Quit using their products, or anything made with their products. Ditto GE,
Exxon, Chevron, Microsoft, J&J, Safeway, Apple, Ford, GM, and those evil pharma
companies, who only sell antibiotics and stuff to make money.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom timing and laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

[Jamie M]

Hi Bill,

This is OT in an OT thread, but I was wondering if you know how to
remove chloramine from the drinking water supply? Apparently many
municiple water supplies switched from chlorine and now use chloramine
instead and it is harder to remove with a normal carbon filter apparently!

I have been brewing kombucha and am resorting to well water to get a
half decent brewing, I think the yeast/bacteria doesn't grow properly in
city water here.

cheers,
Jamie

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 24 May 2013 10:37:40 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 9:38 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Thursday, 23 May 2013 13:02:10 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> >> On 5/22/2013 6:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 23 May 2013 05:35:04 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> >>>> On 5/22/2013 1:30 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>>> ...

<snip>

> Hi Bill,
>
> This is OT in an OT thread, but I was wondering if you know how to
> remove chloramine from the drinking water supply? Apparently many
> municiple water supplies switched from chlorine and now use chloramine
> instead and it is harder to remove with a normal carbon filter apparently!
>
> I have been brewing kombucha and am resorting to well water to get a
> half decent brewing, I think the yeast/bacteria doesn't grow properly in
> city water here.

No idea. I was trained as a physical chemist. You might trying a reducing agent, like sodium sulphite but since it is widely available to brewers precisely because it kills bugs, this might not do what you want.

A bit of NaSO3 followed by boiling to get rid of most of the SO2 might work. What you really need is an oxidation-reduction sensor, which might be a pair of electrochemical electrodes, but I really haven't done anything but the most trivial electrochemistry.

Searching om "titrating chloramines" brought up this document

http://www.wqa.org/pdf/techbulletins/tb-chloramine.pdf

which you may find useful. Activated charcoal is something of a cure-all.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/mdbp/upload/2001_01_12_mdbp_alter_chapt_6.pdf

is ostensibly more comprehensive, but struck me a bureaucratic bumf.

http://enpub.fulton.asu.edu/pwest/Theses_Diss/Dissertation_jang.pdf

is a thesis, so everything is properly referenced, but it's scarcely more helpful.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[josephkk]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:37:40 -0700, Jamie M <jmo...@shaw.ca> wrote:

>
>Hi Bill,
>
>This is OT in an OT thread, but I was wondering if you know how to
>remove chloramine from the drinking water supply? Apparently many
>municiple water supplies switched from chlorine and now use chloramine
>instead and it is harder to remove with a normal carbon filter apparently!
>
>I have been brewing kombucha and am resorting to well water to get a
>half decent brewing, I think the yeast/bacteria doesn't grow properly in
>city water here.
>
>cheers,
>Jamie

Wikipedia covers it decently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloramine

You can also boil the water and let it cool or full up distill it.

?-)

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:37:40 -0700, Jamie M <jmo...@shaw.ca> wrote:

Mix your water half-and-half with denatured alcohol >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[Jamie M]

Boiling doesn't get rid of chloramine, and not really that effective for
chlorine too, I used to think 30min boiling would get rid of all chlorine.

cheers,
Jamie


>
> ?-)

[Jamie M]

On 5/23/2013 7:48 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> This is OT in an OT thread, but I was wondering if you know how to
>> remove chloramine from the drinking water supply? Apparently many
>> municiple water supplies switched from chlorine and now use chloramine
>> instead and it is harder to remove with a normal carbon filter apparently!
>>
>> I have been brewing kombucha and am resorting to well water to get a
>> half decent brewing, I think the yeast/bacteria doesn't grow properly in
>> city water here.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Jamie
>>
>
> Mix your water half-and-half with denatured alcohol>:-}

I have a feeling I'm already made some methanol in the last batch I cooked!


>
> ...Jim Thompson

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

Get a ZeroWater 5 stage filter.

[Martin Brown]

A trace of vitamin C or sodium (potassium) thiosulphate will do it. Both
will taint the beer if used to excess. Potassium less badly. A home
brewer is likely to already have ascorbic acid (aka Vitamin C).

The latter is a favourite of aquarium owners. Not sure if you can easily
get food grade sodium thiosulphate though maybe at a pharmacy as it does
have other uses as a cyanide antidote but is sold in expensive sterile
solution drinking bottles for that use.

You don't have long to act if someone makes a mistake with cyanide.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 20, 2:39 pm, Jamie M <jmor...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A wonderful Canadian farmer is being epically harassed by the out of
> control Canadian Food Inspection Agency!  Really unbelievable that is
> happening!  I drink raw milk and know how healthy it is compared to
> pasteurized milk, so this seems even more surreal to see the government
> killing her healthy livestock and taking her to court!
>
> http://www.gofundme.com/FarmedandDangerous

Raw milk's all fine and good if the cow's healthy. But it's a little
chancy if you don't know the cow, or where she's been.

But, your choice, naturally, no one else's.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 21, 3:01 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 20/05/2013 23:09, Gib Bogle wrote:
>
> > On 21/05/2013 6:58 a.m., Martin Brown wrote:
>
> >> They are undoubtedly overreacting to scrapie. It is interesting though
> >> that it is so rare in Canada. I had assumed it was endemic everywhere
> >> that sheep are farmed (it was the fact that scrapie was common and did
> >> not jump the species barrier that made the UK complacent about BSE).
>
> >> Looking at New Zealand with lots of sheep it is also rare there. It has
> >> been endemic in the UK for about 250 years and whilst it harms sheep and
> >> goats has never been considered a threat to human health.
>
> >>http://www.defra.gov.uk/ahvla-en/disease-control/notifiable/scrapie/
>
> > Prions are bizarre.
>
> They are in effect a form of artificial life infectious agent that
> occurs spontaneously in nature from time to time and exploits a niche
> that intensive farming has created. It is in essence a brain protein
> folded the wrong way that is a catalyst to make more copies of itself.
> The BSE infective agent proved to be remarkably resilient.
>
> Enforced cannibalism of cows with the remains of earlier infected
> animals and a cavalier attitude towards the risk to the human food chain
> was responsible for allowing it to get out of hand in the UK. The weak
> point was later identified as lowering the length of time and processing
> temperature of animal feed rendering to save money.

I'm a little skeptical on that last point. Our PBS-TV had an CJD
researcher who, IIRC, burned infected bones in a fire, buried the
ashes in his garden, unearthed them two years later, and they were
STILL infectious (as he proved by infecting some lab critters). (This
was before they had a clue what the agent was.)

Prions are ugly. And their gas mileage isn't that much better than my
Acura to boot.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

Either boiling or just letting it sit out a day or two removes most of
the chlorine--it gasses out. You can taste the difference.

I do that for water for sourdough cultures--they don't like chlorine.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

Ooops, missed the "chloramine." Dunno about that one.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Bill Sloman]

Not entirely. We don't want him getting multiply-drug-resistant TB and giving it to all his neighbours.

That's one of the weaknesses of less-than-universal health care systems, not that you will allow yourself to notice this.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[John Devereux]

No no, in that case all the neighbours can sue him. See - it's all good.



--

John Devereux

[John Devereux]

Actually, that's not right. They sue the farmer. Or the cows?

--

John Devereux

[Jeroen]

Yeah, well, except that the money disappears into the wrong pockets.
If you have to spend, spend on health care. That's far better than
to grease yet another lawyer.

Jeroen Belleman

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 24, 11:39 am, John Devereux <j...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
> John Devereux <j...@devereux.me.uk> writes:

It's hard to see how cows would get MDR TB. In the U.S. MDRTB comes
from addicts (with or without HIV), getting free care, feeling better
and quitting treatment. Ironically, it's created as a result of free
medical care.

Unless the cow's hanging in shooting galleries, she's probably
cool. ;-)

MDRTB is serious business. My dad thought it much worse than HIV--
it's far more infectious, and easily spread.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

Or just boil your milk.

I read recently that milk *protein* may be implicated in clogged
arteries. Previously, *butterfat* was thought to be the culprit.

I haven't studied it in detail so it could be a big nothing-burger,
but it dampened my enthusiasm for milk somewhat.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[josephkk]

If you are willing to study some, what you can do is:

Look up the soluabilities of chlorine and cloramines in water versus
temperature. Note how much they drop with increasing temperature. They
will reach equilibrium well within 10 minutes when boiling.

This will tell you how much reduction you should get from boiling the
water. If you chose to do this work please share as i am interested as
well.

Bear in mind that both are rather reactive, and will form new compounds
that have unwanted flavors. To prevent this, serious treatment with a
water softener perhaps followed by reverse osmosis should help to prevent
the formation of undesirable compounds with unwanted flavors in the
boiling process.

?-)

[josephkk]

I suspect that a large part of it is due to some of the differences in
proteins and the ratio and the kinds of butterfats between bovine (and
other ungulates) and human sources. Plus pollution in general seems to
interfere with protein processing gene expression, causing many more
intolerances and allergies.

?-)

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 25 May 2013 07:23:10 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 24, 11:39 am, John Devereux <j...@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
> > John Devereux <j...@devereux.me.uk> writes:
> > > Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> writes:
> > >> On Friday, 24 May 2013 23:41:33 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com  wrote:
> > >>> On May 20, 2:39 pm, Jamie M <jmor...@shaw.ca> wrote:

<snip>

> > >>> Raw milk's all fine and good if the cow's healthy. But it's a little
> > >>> chancy if you don't know the cow, or where she's been.
> >
> > >>> But, your choice, naturally, no one else's.
> >
> > >> Not entirely. We don't want him getting multiply-drug-resistant TB and
> > >> giving it to all his neighbours.
> >
> > >> That's one of the weaknesses of less-than-universal health care
> > >> systems, not that you will allow yourself to notice this.
> >
> > > No no, in that case all the neighbours can sue him. See - it's all good.
> >
> > Actually, that's not right. They sue the farmer. Or the cows?
>

> It's hard to see how cows would get MDR TB. In the U.S. MDRTB comes
> from addicts (with or without HIV), getting free care, feeling better
> and quitting treatment. Ironically, it's created as a result of free
> medical care.

Not true.

http://www.pnas.org/content/91/7/2428.full.pdf

It's created by patients who don't take complete courses of drugs, allowing the bugs to survive long enough to evolve resistance to one or more of the drugs being used in the treatment.

Typhoid Mary was locked up so that she cloudn't infect new patients. but US health care has gone backwards since then.

HIV does make patients more vulnerable to TB, and needle-sharing is a known mechanism for transmitting HIV. Multi-drug resistant TB was a problem in the US before the HIV epidemic.

> Unless the cow's hanging in shooting galleries, she's probably
> cool. ;-)

Or is visited by people who have hung around shooting galleries. Human TB doesn't seem to make cows particularly sick, but it does seem to be particularly infectious.

> MDRTB is serious business. My dad thought it much worse than HIV--
> it's far more infectious, and easily spread.

And kills you faster. Why aren't you worried that the US medical system isn't more focused on eradicating it?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[lang...@fonz.dk]

I though every one bought bottled water for drinking and such in those
places where what come out of the taps smell and taste like swimming
pool ?

I'm lucky enough to live in a country where no clorine or anything
else is
put in the water, the water supply is even forbidden from using carbon
filters

-Lasse

[Jamie M]

On 5/23/2013 11:43 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 24/05/2013 04:23, Jamie M wrote:
>> On 5/23/2013 7:12 PM, josephkk wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:37:40 -0700, Jamie M<jmo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>>> I have been brewing kombucha and am resorting to well water to get a
>>>> half decent brewing, I think the yeast/bacteria doesn't grow
>>>> properly in
>>>> city water here.
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> Wikipedia covers it decently:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloramine
>>>
>>> You can also boil the water and let it cool or full up distill it.
>>
>> Boiling doesn't get rid of chloramine, and not really that effective for
>> chlorine too, I used to think 30min boiling would get rid of all
>> chlorine.
>
> A trace of vitamin C or sodium (potassium) thiosulphate will do it. Both
> will taint the beer if used to excess. Potassium less badly. A home
> brewer is likely to already have ascorbic acid (aka Vitamin C).

Hi,

I've heard this about vitamin C as well, but I think it only neutralizes
the chloramine and doesn't actually remove it, I'm not sure
about this, but pretty sure it just separates the Chlorine ion from the
"amine" part of the molecule, they are still in the water though.

I took second year university chemistry but shouldn't admit that seeing
my ignorance in the first paragraph ;)

cheers,
Jamie

[Jamie M]

Hi,

Well from what I read boiling the water for something like 24hours may
remove half of the chloramine!

This pdf says boiling or distilling don't remove it:
http://www.iuhoakland.com/Chloramine.pdf

Also some info in there about neutralizing ie with vitamin C or sodium
thiosulfate, mentions that ammonia is left over in the water after the
neutralization. So really hard to get rid of, pretty much need a two
step at least neutralization process or a super sized carbon filter.

cheers,
Jamie

>
> ?-)

[Jamie M]

On 5/24/2013 5:15 PM, josephkk wrote:
>> >
>> >Or just boil your milk.
>> >

>> >I read recently that milk*protein* may be implicated in clogged
>> >arteries. Previously,*butterfat* was thought to be the culprit.

>> >
>> >I haven't studied it in detail so it could be a big nothing-burger,
>> >but it dampened my enthusiasm for milk somewhat.
> I suspect that a large part of it is

The pasteurization process can change the proteins and fats, I would
expect raw milk maybe doesn't have the same problems for clogging
arteries as pasteurized/homogenized milk does. Plus a lot of raw milk
is from healthier cows than factory milk, healthy and happier cows
will make healthier milk. Stressed out cows will put stress hormones
in the milk I'm sure.

cheers,
Jamie

[Martin Brown]

Once the available chlorine has been reduced to chloride ion in solution
it is basically benign like a trace of table salt.

>
> I took second year university chemistry but shouldn't admit that seeing
> my ignorance in the first paragraph ;)

All you really want is to neutralise its sterilising property. The
difficulty is more in getting the dose right since excess will taint.

Try this thread:
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f128/chloramine-ascorbic-acid-vitamin-c-questions-380712/

Left for a couple of days a small excess of ascorbic acid oxidises away
provided that the water hasn't been boiled at that stage.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:44:41 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

> I think he meant "defecation" (which I'd spell "defaecation"). People who drink unpasteurised milk can find themselves busy with that. Jamie's posting habits might be be seen as falling into that category too, but it would be unfair to blame that on unpasteurised milk - he might have been born dim, rather than having had dimness thrust upon him.
>

Consuming any kind of unpasteurized dairy product is playing Russian roulette:

http://www.foodsafety.gov/blog/raw_milk.html

...and some personal stories:

http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-videos.html

Lots of links there about other disasters that should make people appreciate the work that has gone into food safety science, its applications, and government regulation.

[Jamie M]

Hi,

That's just not true, raw milk is as safe as most other foods, there
was a talk at the Canada BC center for disease control recently that
went over how safe it is, it was an invited talk by the center for
disease control as they were impressed and wanted to learn more about
raw milk.

http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/nadine-ijaz-is-invite-to-present-on-raw-milk-at-b-c-centre-for-disease-control/

The video for the talk should appear on this site at some point:
http://www.bccdc.ca/util/about/UBCCDC/GrandRounds/default.htm


cheers,
Jamie

[Jasen Betts]

On 2013-05-25, Jamie M <jmo...@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Well from what I read boiling the water for something like 24hours may
> remove half of the chloramine!

Yeah, I wonder if aerating it would work better?

> This pdf says boiling or distilling don't remove it:
> http://www.iuhoakland.com/Chloramine.pdf

Wikipedia suggests UV treatment, but unfortunately gives not details
of which wavelengths to use. we have only artesian water here in
Christchurch. What does your local brew supplies store offer?

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 26 May 2013 16:32:11 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/25/2013 5:59 AM, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:44:41 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >
> >> I think he meant "defecation" (which I'd spell "defaecation"). People who drink unpasteurised milk can find
> themselves busy with that. Jamie's posting habits might be be seen as
> falling into that category too, but it would
> be unfair to blame that on unpasteurised milk - he might have been born
> dim, rather than having had dimness thrust
> upon him.
> >>
> > Consuming any kind of unpasteurized dairy product is playing Russian
> > roulette:
> >
> > http://www.foodsafety.gov/blog/raw_milk.html
> >
> > ...and some personal stories:
> >
> > http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-videos.html
> >
> > Lots of links there about other disasters that should make people
> > appreciate the work that has gone into food safety
> > science, its applications, and government regulation.
>
> Hi,
>
> That's just not true, raw milk is as safe as most other foods,

Not true. Most other foods are cooked.

> there
> was a talk at the Canada BC center for disease control recently that
> went over how safe it is, it was an invited talk by the center for
> disease control as they were impressed and wanted to learn more about
> raw milk.

More likely they wanted to find out about the diseases being spread in raw milk and the people who are silly enough to drink it.

> http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/nadine-ijaz-is-invite-to-present-on-raw-milk-at-b-c-centre-for-disease-control/
>
> The video for the talk should appear on this site at some point:
> http://www.bccdc.ca/util/about/UBCCDC/GrandRounds/default.htm

It hasn't yet. It was supposed to be presented on the 17th May 2013 and it's now the 26th. Maybe it was as ill-informed as your opinion, and got sent back for revision.

Nadine Ijaz is a "medical herbalist, nutritionist, registered shiatsu therapist and independent health researcher who has been in clinical practice for over a decade. Her varied training at colleges of traditional Chinese medicine and shiatsu therapy complement her nutritional and herbal trainings under renowned practitioners."

Which is to say she's a practitioner of alternative medicine. Regular medicine has its weaknesses, but quite a bit of it is evidence-based, and a lot of it works. Alternative medicine is rather more heavily reliant on the placebo effect.

http://www.pacificrimcollege.ca/index.html

http://www.pacificrimcollege.ca/faculty_and_staff.html

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[josephkk]

Well reading only "true believer" rags is a real good way to not approach
the task in a rational way. Try starting with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloramine

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/chloramines/index-eng.php

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/174temppres.html

I went looking for a MSDS for it and found that to be very challenging
(not found yet), i am wondering why. It has problems, not the least of
which it can explosively decompose.

?-)

[josephkk]

On 26 May 2013 06:41:39 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

>On 2013-05-25, Jamie M <jmo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Well from what I read boiling the water for something like 24hours may
>> remove half of the chloramine!
>
>Yeah, I wonder if aerating it would work better?
>
>> This pdf says boiling or distilling don't remove it:
>> http://www.iuhoakland.com/Chloramine.pdf
>
>Wikipedia suggests UV treatment, but unfortunately gives not details
>of which wavelengths to use. we have only artesian water here in
>Christchurch. What does your local brew supplies store offer?

That would be ozone producing lamps, same as for UV water disinfection.

?-)

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 25 May 2013 11:23:49 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/24/2013 5:15 PM, josephkk wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Or just boil your milk.
> >> >
> >> >I read recently that milk*protein* may be implicated in clogged
> >> >arteries. Previously,*butterfat* was thought to be the culprit.
> >> >
> >> >I haven't studied it in detail so it could be a big nothing-burger,
> >> >but it dampened my enthusiasm for milk somewhat.
> >
> > I suspect that a large part of it is
>
> The pasteurization process can change the proteins and fats,

How?

> I would
> expect raw milk maybe doesn't have the same problems for clogging
> arteries as pasteurized/homogenized milk does.

Why? By the time milk has got through your digestive system and its enzymes, and your stomach wall, it's been a lot more heavily processed than mere pasteurisation.

> Plus a lot of raw milk is from healthier cows than factory milk,

Why do you think that? People who sell unpasteurised milk are taking chances with the health of their human customers. They may have equally silly ideas about what keeps their cows healthy and happy.

> healthy and happier cows will make healthier milk.

A claim which needs supporting evidence, preferably from an institution with a bit more credibility that the "Pacific Rim College".

http://www.pacificrimcollege.ca/index.html

> Stressed out cows will put stress hormones in the milk I'm sure.

Others with a better grasp of cause and effect might be less sure. In any event, you'd have to demonstrate that regular cows are "stressed out", that their stress hormones show up in their milk, and that cow stress hormones make a difference to human milk consumers.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jamie M]

Here's some info on the life of a dairy cow:

http://www.nzdairy.webs.com/thelifeofadairycow.htm

They live more stressful lives compared to a typical small scale raw
milk producing cow, producing far more milk in the same amount of time,
and being bred to produce as much milk as possible putting them under
stress from the milk production.

If you equate stress with lifespan then this quote sums it up:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_cattle

"Cow longevity is strongly correlated with production levels.[20] Lower
production cows live longer than high production cows, but may be less
profitable"

For the hormones here is a list of naturally occuring hormones in cows
milk:
http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/hormones.html

I think those probably have some hormonal effect on humans, some of
them stress related.

Here is some more info on industrial cows milk:
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/dangers-of-cows-milk/

cheers,
Jamie




>

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 27 May 2013 12:19:58 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/26/2013 6:39 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Saturday, 25 May 2013 11:23:49 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2013 5:15 PM, josephkk wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or just boil your milk.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I read recently that milk*protein* may be implicated in clogged
> >>>>> arteries. Previously,*butterfat* was thought to be the culprit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I haven't studied it in detail so it could be a big nothing-burger,
> >>>>> but it dampened my enthusiasm for milk somewhat.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect that a large part of it is
> >>
> >> The pasteurization process can change the proteins and fats,
> >
> > How?
> >
> >> I would
> >> expect raw milk maybe doesn't have the same problems for clogging
> >> arteries as pasteurized/homogenized milk does
> >

> > Why? By the time milk has got through your digestive system and its
> > enzymes, and your stomach wall, it's been a
> > lot more heavily processed than mere pasteurisation.
> >
> >> Plus a lot of raw milk is from healthier cows than factory milk,
> >
> > Why do you think that? People who sell unpasteurised milk are taking
> > chances with the health of their human customers.
> > They may have equally silly ideas about what keeps their cows healthy
> > and happy.
> >
> >> healthy and happier cows will make healthier milk.
> >
> > A claim which needs supporting evidence, preferably from an institution
> > with a bit more credibility that the "Pacific
> > Rim College".
> >
> > http://www.pacificrimcollege.ca/index.html
> >
> >> Stressed out cows will put stress hormones in the milk I'm sure.
> >
> > Others with a better grasp of cause and effect might be less sure. In any
> > event, you'd have to demonstrate that
> > regular cows are "stressed out", that their stress hormones show up in
> > their milk, and that cow stress hormones make a
> > difference to human milk consumers.
>
> Here's some info on the life of a dairy cow:
>
> http://www.nzdairy.webs.com/thelifeofadairycow.htm

A New Zealand dairy cow - and if you'd clicked on the "home" point for your page you'd have got to

http://nzdairy.webs.com/

You'd have found the headline "NZ Dairy Cruelty" which makes it a less than objective source.

<snipped animal cruelty propaganda>

> For the hormones here is a list of naturally occurring hormones in cows
>
> milk:
>
> http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/hormones.html

Which includes the reassuring line "Rest assured, with regard to hormones, clean raw milk from organic grass-fed cows contains only the precisely balanced trace amounts that nature puts there."

If this were true it would still ignore the fact that calves and human children are different, and human children may not respond in the same way to the hormone mix that evolved to suit calves.

> I think those probably have some hormonal effect on humans, some of
> them stress related.

Your "thinking" could be better informed.

> Here is some more info on industrial cows milk:
>
> http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/dangers-of-cows-milk/

Written by Dr.Group - who "no longer sees patients" but "solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community" for which you don't need to be a licensed medical practitioner.

You need to a take a few lessons in scepticism. It would probably do more for your health than digging out misinformation from alternative medicine web-sites.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Martin Brown]

On 26/05/2013 10:24, josephkk wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:17:52 -0700, Jamie M <jmo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>> If you are willing to study some, what you can do is:
>>>
>>> Look up the soluabilities of chlorine and cloramines in water versus
>>> temperature. Note how much they drop with increasing temperature. They
>>> will reach equilibrium well within 10 minutes when boiling.
>>>
>>> This will tell you how much reduction you should get from boiling the
>>> water. If you chose to do this work please share as i am interested as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> Bear in mind that both are rather reactive, and will form new compounds
>>> that have unwanted flavors. To prevent this, serious treatment with a
>>> water softener perhaps followed by reverse osmosis should help to prevent
>>> the formation of undesirable compounds with unwanted flavors in the
>>> boiling process.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Well from what I read boiling the water for something like 24hours may
>> remove half of the chloramine!
>>
>> This pdf says boiling or distilling don't remove it:
>> http://www.iuhoakland.com/Chloramine.pdf
>>
>> Also some info in there about neutralizing ie with vitamin C or sodium
>> thiosulfate, mentions that ammonia is left over in the water after the
>> neutralization. So really hard to get rid of, pretty much need a two
>> step at least neutralization process or a super sized carbon filter.
>>
>>>

>>> ?-)
>
>
> Well reading only "true believer" rags is a real good way to not approach
> the task in a rational way. Try starting with:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloramine

They should also agree that the simplest way to detox water for fish or
brewing is a trace of thiosulphate, sulphite or ascorbic acid (Vit C).
The latter two a home brewer is likely to already have in the cupboard.
Snag with sulphite is that any excess will also halt fermentation.

Water companies like chloramine because it hangs around in the water for
long enough to keep the distribution pipes approximately sterile. This
is also the reason why fish and aquarium owners hate it.

>
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/chloramines/index-eng.php
>
> http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/174temppres.html
>
> I went looking for a MSDS for it and found that to be very challenging
> (not found yet), i am wondering why. It has problems, not the least of
> which it can explosively decompose.
>
> ?-)

You can't buy it although you can buy things that are less malevolent
and decompose to form it in solution like the algicide chloramine T.
Sensible folk wear PPE to handle it MSDS link below:

http://www.tedpella.com/msds_html/18625%20msds.pdf

Chlorine, chloramine and nitrogen trichloride are the reasons why toilet
cleaners say do not use more than one sort on the same task.

Any mixture leaves you in either choking chlorine fumes, a detonation or
both. (you have to be very unlucky to for NCl3 to be formed but it is
extremely tetchy stuff and a lot less forgiving than NI3).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:32:11 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:

> That's just not true, raw milk is as safe as most other foods, there
>
> was a talk at the Canada BC center for disease control recently that
>
> went over how safe it is, it was an invited talk by the center for
>
> disease control as they were impressed and wanted to learn more about
>
> raw milk.
>
>
>
> http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/nadine-ijaz-is-invite-to-present-on-raw-milk-at-b-c-centre-for-disease-control/
>
>
>
> The video for the talk should appear on this site at some point:
>
> http://www.bccdc.ca/util/about/UBCCDC/GrandRounds/default.htm
>

You need to understand that people were able to drink raw milk in the bygone days because of inherited ( and hard won ) immunity that people just don't have anymore. The reason is you inherit your mother's immunity temporarily, but, if not exposed to the pathogen so as to activate the immune response within approximately the first seven years of life, you lose it. For most of modern society there's nothing to inherit anymore, having disappeared several generations ago or whenever they moved off the farms.

[Jamie M]

Hi,

people still drink raw milk every day around the world. You can get it
in vending machines in Europe.

cheers,
Jamie

[Jamie M]

Hi,

If a licensed medical practioner comes out in favour of raw milk they
will most likely lose their license I would think. That's why the whole
national medical monopoly is detrimental to health, as it discourages
Doctors from applying what they learn and instead follow the national
guidelines.

cheers,
Jamie

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 31 May 2013 07:21:43 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/27/2013 1:14 PM, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:32:11 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
> >
> >> That's just not true, raw milk is as safe as most other foods, there
> >> was a talk at the Canada BC center for disease control recently tha

> >> went over how safe it is, it was an invited talk by the center for
> >> disease control as they were impressed and wanted to learn more abou

> >> raw milk.
> >>
> >> http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/nadine-ijaz-is-invite-to-present-on-raw-milk-at-b-c-centre-for-disease-control/

> >>
> >> The video for the talk should appear on this site at some point:
> >>
> >> http://www.bccdc.ca/util/about/UBCCDC/GrandRounds/default.htm
> >
> > You need to understand that people were able to drink raw milk in the
> > bygone days because of inherited ( and hard won
> > ) immunity that people just don't have anymore. The reason is you
> > inherit your mother's immunity temporarily, but, if
> > not exposed to the pathogen so as to activate the immune response
> > within approximately the first seven years of life,
> > you lose it. For most of modern society there's nothing to inherit
> > anymore, having disappeared several generations ago
> > or whenever they moved off the farms.
>
> Hi,
>
> people still drink raw milk every day around the world. You can get it
> in vending machines in Europe.

And cigarettes. Half the population has below average intelligence, and even nominally intelligent people don't always see "alternative medicine" as a potentially life-threatening confidence trick.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

Doctors are trained to avoid critical thinking - if they worry about the wrong decisions that they have made which have ended up killing patients, they become nervous wrecks. As a result they have been known to adopt silly ideas, and if that happens then the only thing the rest of the profession can do to protect patients is to take away their licenses.

The guy - William McBride - that noticed that thalidomide was producing birth defects, went on to falsely suspect that Debendox did too, and faked evidence to "prove" that his - false - suspicion was correct. It got him struck off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McBride_%28doctor%29

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Martin Brown]

On 30/05/2013 22:21, Jamie M wrote:

> people still drink raw milk every day around the world. You can get it
> in vending machines in Europe.
>
> cheers,
> Jamie

Who told you that one? You *can* buy raw unpasteurised milk direct from
farmers here but you would have to try pretty hard to do it. It has been
that way since 1985 when UK retail sales of raw milk was banned.

Most milk now is pasteurised and sold in supermarkets as a loss leader.

The lifeless boiled to death UHT white paint sold in America as
homogenised milk has a tiny market share, but unpasteurised has an even
smaller share (currently estimated to be <0.01% of UK milk sales).

http://www.milk.co.uk/page.aspx?intPageID=43

I have never seen a milk vending machine anywhere in Europe selling
unpasteurised or any other sort of milk and I have travelled fairly
widely. Cheeses made from unpasteurised milk are fairly common.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

On 30/05/2013 22:26, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/26/2013 9:16 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>
>>> For the hormones here is a list of naturally occurring hormones in cows
>>>
>>> milk:
>>>
>>> http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/hormones.html
>>
>> Which includes the reassuring line "Rest assured, with regard to
>> hormones, clean raw milk from organic grass-fed cows
>
> contains only the precisely balanced trace amounts that nature puts there."

Which is now well known to be utter bovine excrement. There are plenty
of entirely natural poisons around even in common food crops.

Organic farms use clover to fix nitrogen and fertilise their fields.

Clover isn't all that keen on being eaten and contains a goitregen which
blocks uptake of iodine by cows in organic pasture. Pregnant women are
now advised not to drink Organic(TM) milk in the UK as iodine deficiency
during pregnancy causes reduced IQ.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22607161

Organic(TM) farming is a sophisticated ripoff scheme to separate rich
worried well hypochondriacs from more of their money for less food.

Minimum inputs farming is rational. Organic(TM) produce is a con.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Jamie M]

Hi,

Ya it is surprising but there are raw milk vending machines all around
europe:

http://www.naturalnews.com/034786_raw_milk_vending_machines_Europe.html

Article on pathogens detected in the raw milk vending machines but at
levels too low to cause human health problems:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/03/study-finds-pathogens-in-italian-vending-machine-raw-milk-1/

cheers,
Jamie

[Jamie M]

Hi,

That advice not to drink organic milk due to lack of iodine in it sounds
more like a political than a health reason, iodized salt is common and
iodine can be added to any food as an ingredient it doesn't have to come
from milk, also cows feed used to have less iodine in it than it does
now apparently.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/7/3421.full

"Cows’ milk continues to be a primary source of U.S. dietary iodine.
Milk iodine content increased by 300–500% over the period from
1965–1980, largely due to changes in cattle feeds"

cheers,
Jamie

[Martin Brown]

You are reading crank sites that wilfully misrepresent the situation in
Europe. City dwellers would not even know where to go to buy raw milk.

Obviously the farmers that do sell it use a vending machine, but they
are *extremely* rare except possibly in Poland (never been there).

There are less than a dozen known to sell raw milk in the UK see:

http://www.seedsofhealth.co.uk/resources/dairy/index.shtml

There may be a few more they haven't listed yet.

UK <0.01% market share for green top milk says it all.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

Not in the UK it isn't.
Island nation historically eating plenty of fish.

And to add iodine to salt here would pick up the same sort of flack from
the worried well that fluoridating water does in the USA.

> iodine can be added to any food as an ingredient it doesn't have to come
> from milk, also cows feed used to have less iodine in it than it does
> now apparently.
>
> http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/7/3421.full
>

> "Cows� milk continues to be a primary source of U.S. dietary iodine.
> Milk iodine content increased by 300�500% over the period from
> 1965�1980, largely due to changes in cattle feeds"
>
> cheers,
> Jamie

The point here is that the Organic(TM) milk is inferior for iodine
content precisely *BECAUSE* it is an overpriced Organic(TM) product. The
magical claims made for Organic(TM) are largely bogus.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 31 May 2013 18:01:30 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/31/2013 12:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> > On 30/05/2013 22:26, Jamie M wrote:
> >> On 5/26/2013 9:16 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

<snip>

> Hi,
>
> That advice not to drink organic milk due to lack of iodine in it sounds
> more like a political than a health reason, iodized salt is common and
> iodine can be added to any food as an ingredient it doesn't have to come
> from milk, also cows feed used to have less iodine in it than it does
> now apparently.
>
> http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/7/3421.full
>

> "Cows� milk continues to be a primary source of U.S. dietary iodine.
> Milk iodine content increased by 300�500% over the period from
> 1965�1980, largely due to changes in cattle feeds"

It's not just the iodine in the milk, but also the iodine-up-take blocking compounds that can get into the milk is the cows graze on - say - brassicae.

This was a problem in Tasmania when I was growing up there. Happily, I hated the free school milk and didn't drink it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2554322/?page=1

tells the story - in as much as it was ever publicised, since the Tasmanian dairy industry didn't like it at all.

The interesting stuff is around the eighth page of text, and is nuanced and non-committal enough to have kept the dairy industry from going ballistic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jamie M]

Hi,

I haven't been to Europe so don't know much about it, but there are many
raw milk products sold all around the world and are very common,
also from the wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk

there are no restrictions on raw milk in the EU and it is legal to sell
for human consumption.

Also from that page:

"In Germany, raw milk is sold as Vorzugsmilch.[12] This means, the raw
milk has to be packed before vending, with the necessary information
(Producer, durability etc.) written on the product. The distribution
license has severe quality restrictions, and so just 80 farmers in
Germany have one."

Its funny some cheeses are legally required to be made from raw milk
in Europe, so its illegal to use pasteurized milk in some cases there!

"French Roquefort, a famous blue cheese, which is required by European
law to be made from raw sheep's milk."

Its not a big deal about raw vs pasteurized milk, both are safe to
drink in the short term and raw milk is just healthier long term.

cheers,
Jamie

[Jamie M]

>> "Cows’ milk continues to be a primary source of U.S. dietary iodine.
>> Milk iodine content increased by 300–500% over the period from
>> 1965–1980, largely due to changes in cattle feeds"

>>
>> cheers,
>> Jamie
>
> The point here is that the Organic(TM) milk is inferior for iodine
> content precisely *BECAUSE* it is an overpriced Organic(TM) product. The
> magical claims made for Organic(TM) are largely bogus.
>

Hi,

That logic is flawed I think, using the same logic you could say that
grass is inferior to concrete because it requires water and sun to
cover the ground. :)

cheers,
Jamie

[Jamie M]

On 5/31/2013 2:39 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, 31 May 2013 18:01:30 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
>> On 5/31/2013 12:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2013 22:26, Jamie M wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2013 9:16 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> That advice not to drink organic milk due to lack of iodine in it sounds
>> more like a political than a health reason, iodized salt is common and
>> iodine can be added to any food as an ingredient it doesn't have to come
>> from milk, also cows feed used to have less iodine in it than it does
>> now apparently.
>>
>> http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/7/3421.full
>>

>> "Cows� milk continues to be a primary source of U.S. dietary iodine.
>> Milk iodine content increased by 300�500% over the period from
>> 1965�1980, largely due to changes in cattle feeds"

>
> It's not just the iodine in the milk, but also the iodine-up-take blocking compounds that can get into the milk is the cows graze on - say - brassicae.
>
> This was a problem in Tasmania when I was growing up there. Happily, I hated the free school milk and didn't drink it.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2554322/?page=1
>
> tells the story - in as much as it was ever publicised, since the Tasmanian dairy industry didn't like it at all.
>
> The interesting stuff is around the eighth page of text, and is nuanced and non-committal enough to have kept the dairy industry from going ballistic.
>

Hi,

Oh I see, so yep I agree there, that's one case where raw milk is bad to
drink then maybe :)

cheers,
Jamie

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 1 June 2013 03:58:07 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/31/2013 2:39 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, 31 May 2013 18:01:30 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2013 12:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>> On 30/05/2013 22:26, Jamie M wrote:
> >>>> On 5/26/2013 9:16 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> That advice not to drink organic milk due to lack of iodine in it sounds
> >> more like a political than a health reason, iodized salt is common and
> >> iodine can be added to any food as an ingredient it doesn't have to come
> >> from milk, also cows feed used to have less iodine in it than it does
> >> now apparently.
> >>
> >> http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/7/3421.full
> >>

> >> "Cows� milk continues to be a primary source of U.S. dietary iodine.
> >> Milk iodine content increased by 300�500% over the period from
> >> 1965�1980, largely due to changes in cattle feeds"
> >
> > It's not just the iodine in the milk, but also the that can get into the milk is the cows graze on - say - brassicae.

> >
> > This was a problem in Tasmania when I was growing up there. Happily, I hated the free school milk and didn't drink it.
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2554322/?page=1
> >
> > tells the story - in as much as it was ever publicised, since the Tasmanian > > dairy industry didn't like it at all.
> >
> > The interesting stuff is around the eighth page of text, and is nuanced and > > non-committal enough to have kept the dairy industry from going ballistic.
> >
> Hi,
>
> Oh I see, so yep I agree there, that's one case where raw milk is bad to
> drink then maybe :)

Your reading comprehension is as weak as ever. The offending milk was pasteurised - the iodine-up-take blocking compounds survived pasteurisation unscathed. The point is that any milk can be dangerous for reasons that your technologically inadequate alternative medicine advisors aren't equipped to comprehend, any more than you are.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 1 June 2013 03:52:47 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/31/2013 1:43 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> > On 31/05/2013 08:22, Jamie M wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2013 12:06 AM, Martin Brown wrote
> >>> On 30/05/2013 22:21, Jamie M wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> people still drink raw milk every day around the world. You can get it
> >>>> in vending machines in Europe.
> >>>

> >>> Who told you that one? You *can* buy raw unpasteurised milk direct from
> >>> farmers here but you would have to try pretty hard to do it. It has been
> >>> that way since 1985 when UK retail sales of raw milk was banned.
> >>>
> >>> Most milk now is pasteurised and sold in supermarkets as a loss leader
> >>>

Your reading comprehension is poor. In one line you - falsely - claim that there are no restrictions on the sale of raw milk in Europe and in the next you post quoted text which says that in Germany it requires a distribution license with severe quality restrictions.

> Its funny some cheeses are legally required to be made from raw milk
> in Europe, so its illegal to use pasteurized milk in some cases there!
>
> "French Roquefort, a famous blue cheese, which is required by European
> law to be made from raw sheep's milk."

The process of turning sheep's milk into Roquefort involves introducing the mould Penicillium roqueforti which makes the cheese a difficult environment for any other bug.

> Its not a big deal about raw vs pasteurized milk, both are safe to
> drink in the short term and raw milk is just healthier long term.

So you keep on claiming, thereby exhibiting clear evidence of cognitive deficit. We don't know if you were stupid when you started drinking raw milk - though it seems likely - but you are clearly stupid now. Not a good advertisement for the product.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jamie M]

Different realities - I believe more in that now after discussing this
with you Bill thanks for opening my mind. I could look at all the
formal scientific evidence against raw milk and agree with you or I
could just keep drinking it, I see both options and choose to drink it! :)

cheers,
Jamie

[Jamie M]

On 5/31/2013 4:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, 1 June 2013 03:58:07 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
>> On 5/31/2013 2:39 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>> On Friday, 31 May 2013 18:01:30 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2013 12:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 30/05/2013 22:26, Jamie M wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/26/2013 9:16 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> That advice not to drink organic milk due to lack of iodine in it sounds
>>>> more like a political than a health reason, iodized salt is common and
>>>> iodine can be added to any food as an ingredient it doesn't have to come
>>>> from milk, also cows feed used to have less iodine in it than it does
>>>> now apparently.
>>>>
>>>> http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/7/3421.full
>>>>

>>>> "Cows� milk continues to be a primary source of U.S. dietary iodine.
>>>> Milk iodine content increased by 300�500% over the period from
>>>> 1965�1980, largely due to changes in cattle feeds"

>>>
>>> It's not just the iodine in the milk, but also the that can get into the milk is the cows graze on - say - brassicae.

>>>
>>> This was a problem in Tasmania when I was growing up there. Happily, I hated the free school milk and didn't drink it.

>>>
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2554322/?page=1
>>>
>>> tells the story - in as much as it was ever publicised, since the Tasmanian> > dairy industry didn't like it at all.

>>>
>>> The interesting stuff is around the eighth page of text, and is nuanced and> > non-committal enough to have kept the

dairy industry from going ballistic.
>>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Oh I see, so yep I agree there, that's one case where raw milk is bad to
>> drink then maybe :)
>
> Your reading comprehension is as weak as ever. The offending milk was pasteurised - the iodine-up-take blocking

compounds survived pasteurisation unscathed. The point is that any milk
can be dangerous for reasons that your

technologically inadequate alternative medicine advisors aren't equipped
to comprehend, any more than you are.
>

Bill,

Your logic is straight ahead and narrow, there is a lot of side logic
you miss out on if you use lateral thinking try it out.

cheers,
Jamie

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 1 June 2013 12:49:11 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/31/2013 4:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Saturday, 1 June 2013 03:58:07 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2013 2:39 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 31 May 2013 18:01:30 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> >>>> On 5/31/2013 12:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>>>> On 30/05/2013 22:26, Jamie M wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/26/2013 9:16 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> That advice not to drink organic milk due to lack of iodine in it sounds
> >>>> more like a political than a health reason, iodized salt is common and
> >>>> iodine can be added to any food as an ingredient it doesn't have to come
> >>>> from milk, also cows feed used to have less iodine in it than it does
> >>>> now apparently.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/7/3421.full
> >>>>

> >>>> "Cows� milk continues to be a primary source of U.S. dietary iodine.
> >>>> Milk iodine content increased by 300�500% over the period from
> >>>> 1965�1980, largely due to changes in cattle feeds"
> >>>
> >>> It's not just the iodine in the milk, but also the that can get into the > >>> milk if the cows graze on - say - brassicae.

> >>>
> >>> This was a problem in Tasmania when I was growing up there. Happily, I
> >>> hated the free school milk and didn't drink it.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2554322/?page=1
> >>>
> >>> tells the story - in as much as it was ever publicised, since the
> >>> Tasmanian dairy industry didn't like it at all.
> >>>
> >>> The interesting stuff is around the eighth page of text, and is nuanced
> >>> and non-committal enough to have kept the
> >>> dairy industry from going ballistic.
> >>>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Oh I see, so yep I agree there, that's one case where raw milk is bad to
> >> drink then maybe :)
> >
> > Your reading comprehension is as weak as ever. The offending milk was
> > pasteurised - the iodine-up-take blocking
> > compounds survived pasteurisation unscathed. The point is that any milk
> > can be dangerous for reasons that your
> > technologically inadequate alternative medicine advisors aren't equipped
> > to comprehend, any more than you are.
> >
> Bill,
>
> Your logic is straight ahead and narrow, there is a lot of side logic

> you miss out on. If you use lateral thinking try it out.

I'm afraid that it's your "logic" that is strait and narrow. You are fixed on the idea that raw milk is good for you, and any lateral extension of attention into the areas where it isn't is quite beyond you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

You don't actually seem to have looked at the formal scientific evidence, so at most you are claiming to accept that such evidence exists. Since you are continuing to ignore it - and the reality that it reveals - we can't claim to have opened your mind, if indeed you've got a mind worth opening.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Martin Brown]

No they are not. They are in a few states right on the far eastern
border of the EU where they appear to lack pasteurisation equipment. It
is a step up from just pouring it out of a milk churn I suppose.

>>> Article on pathogens detected in the raw milk vending machines but at
>>> levels too low to cause human health problems:
>>>
>>> http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/03/study-finds-pathogens-in-italian-vending-machine-raw-milk-1/
>>
>> You are reading crank sites that wilfully misrepresent the situation in
>> Europe. City dwellers would not even know where to go to buy raw milk.
>
> Hi,
>
> I haven't been to Europe so don't know much about it, but there are many
> raw milk products sold all around the world and are very common,
> also from the wikipedia page:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk
>
> there are no restrictions on raw milk in the EU and it is legal to sell
> for human consumption.

That is incredibly misleading there are at most few dozen farms in the
UK, none at all in Scotland (where it *is* illegal to sell raw milk).

The bulk of the countries in the EU where raw milk is common are the
backward newly acquired states that lack industrial infrastructure as is
clearly shown on that somewhat US raw milk crank biassed Wiki page.

>
> Also from that page:
>
> "In Germany, raw milk is sold as Vorzugsmilch.[12] This means, the raw
> milk has to be packed before vending, with the necessary information
> (Producer, durability etc.) written on the product. The distribution
> license has severe quality restrictions, and so just 80 farmers in
> Germany have one."

Just 80 farms doing it in a very large country. Yes it is sold but still
a minuscule part of the overall daily fresh milk sales.

> Its funny some cheeses are legally required to be made from raw milk
> in Europe, so its illegal to use pasteurized milk in some cases there!
>
> "French Roquefort, a famous blue cheese, which is required by European
> law to be made from raw sheep's milk."

Many of the best cheeses are made from raw unpasteurised milk. The
process of making cheese generally sees off any bad bacteria in the same
way that making beer used to kill off bad bacteria in water.

The taste of these old cheeses just isn't the same if the milk is
pasteurised first but you do have to accept there is a slight risk
associated with it (but a very much lower risk than with raw milk).

>
> Its not a big deal about raw vs pasteurized milk, both are safe to
> drink in the short term and raw milk is just healthier long term.

Provided that you survive the various nasty bacterial infections you
will inevitably acquire from consuming raw milk. Even raw milk cheeses
which are considerably safer are not recommended here for the elderly,
people with suppressed immune response or pregnant women.

>> There are less than a dozen known to sell raw milk inthe UK see:

>>
>> http://www.seedsofhealth.co.uk/resources/dairy/index.shtml
>>
>> There may be a few more they haven't listed yet.
>>
>> UK <0.01% market share for green top milk says it all.
>>
>

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Jamie M]

On 6/1/2013 12:09 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, 1 June 2013 12:49:11 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
>> On 5/31/2013 4:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 1 June 2013 03:58:07 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2013 2:39 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 31 May 2013 18:01:30 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/31/2013 12:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30/05/2013 22:26, Jamie M wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2013 9:16 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That advice not to drink organic milk due to lack of iodine in it sounds
>>>>>> more like a political than a health reason, iodized salt is common and
>>>>>> iodine can be added to any food as an ingredient it doesn't have to come
>>>>>> from milk, also cows feed used to have less iodine in it than it does
>>>>>> now apparently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/7/3421.full
>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Cows� milk continues to be a primary source of U.S. dietary iodine.
>>>>>> Milk iodine content increased by 300�500% over the period from
>>>>>> 1965�1980, largely due to changes in cattle feeds"

Hi,

I drink 1 gallon per week of raw milk made into kefir and know its good
for me! Sorry I don't really see any point in reading the science
against it when I have the first hand experience of drinking it.

cheers,
Jamie

[Martin Brown]

It obviously rots the brain too! You are not drinking the raw milk!

Do you know that kefir is a fermented milk made from a starter culture
and as such is not the same as drinking raw fresh unpasteurised milk.

It is much closer to consuming a soft immature cheese. Most old
fermentation tricks of this predate pasteurisation by a long way and do
confer some protection from pathogens present in the original raw milk.

Same way that beer could make bacteria contaminated water potable.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Jamie M]

On 6/3/2013 12:15 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I drink 1 gallon per week of raw milk made into kefir and know its good
>> for me! Sorry I don't really see any point in reading the science
>> against it when I have the first hand experience of drinking it.
>
> It obviously rots the brain too! You are not drinking the raw milk!
>
> Do you know that kefir is a fermented milk made from a starter culture
> and as such is not the same as drinking raw fresh unpasteurised milk.
>
> It is much closer to consuming a soft immature cheese. Most old
> fermentation tricks of this predate pasteurisation by a long way and do
> confer some protection from pathogens present in the original raw milk.
>
> Same way that beer could make bacteria contaminated water potable.
>

Hi,

I drink raw milk sometimes too, maybe 1 or 2 cups average at the time
each week that I make kefir. There are many products you can make
from raw milk or drink it raw directly and safely.

The real danger foods if you ask the experts are refined sugars,
a lot of foods used to be fermented, ie ketchup was fermented until it
was changed into a refined sugar product by the Heinz company in 1876!

The fermented foods are healthy and natural but most people don't eat
them anymore.

cheers,
Jamie

[Bill Sloman]

On Jun 3, 1:28 pm, Jamie M <jmor...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On 6/1/2013 12:09 AM,Bill Slomanwrote:

> > On Saturday, 1 June 2013 12:49:11 UTC+10, Jamie M  wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2013 4:35 PM,Bill Slomanwrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 1 June 2013 03:58:07 UTC+10, Jamie M  wrote:
> >>>> On 5/31/2013 2:39 AM,Bill Slomanwrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, 31 May 2013 18:01:30 UTC+10, Jamie M  wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/31/2013 12:17 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 30/05/2013 22:26, Jamie M wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/26/2013 9:16 PM,Bill Slomanwrote:
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>> That advice not to drink organic milk due to lack of iodine in it sounds
> >>>>>> more like a political than a health reason, iodized salt is common and
> >>>>>> iodine can be added to any food as an ingredient it doesn't have to come
> >>>>>> from milk, also cows feed used to have less iodine in it than it does
> >>>>>> now apparently.
>
> >>>>>>http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/7/3421.full
>
> >>>>>> "Cows milk continues to be a primary source of U.S. dietary iodine.
> >>>>>> Milk iodine content increased by 300 500% over the period from
> >>>>>> 1965 1980, largely due to changes in cattle feeds"
>

> >>>>> It's not just the iodine in the milk, but also the iodine-blocking
> >>>>> compounds that can get into the>  >>>   milk if the cows graze on - say

> >>>>> - brassicae.
>
> >>>>> This was a problem in Tasmania when I was growing up there. Happily, I
> >>>>> hated the free school milk and didn't drink it.
>
> >>>>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2554322/?page=1
>
> >>>>> tells the story - in as much as it was ever publicised, since the
> >>>>> Tasmanian  dairy industry didn't like it at all.
> >>>>> The interesting stuff is around the eighth page of text, and is nuanced
> >>>>> and non-committal enough to have kept the
> >>>>>    dairy industry from going ballistic.
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> Oh I see, so yep I agree there, that's one case where raw milk is bad to
> >>>> drink then maybe :)
> >>>>
> >>> Your reading comprehension is as weak as ever. The offending milk was
> >>> pasteurised - the iodine-up-take blocking
> >>> compounds survived pasteurisation unscathed. The point is that any milk
> >>> can be dangerous for reasons that your
> >>> technologically inadequate alternative medicine advisors aren't equipped
> >>> to comprehend, any more than you are.
> >>

> >> Your logic is straight ahead and narrow, there is a lot of side logic
> >> you miss out on. If you use lateral thinking try it out.
>
> > I'm afraid that it's your "logic" that is strait and narrow. You are fixed on the idea that raw milk is good for you,
> > and any lateral extension of attention into the areas where it isn't is
> > quite beyond you.
>

> I drink 1 gallon per week of raw milk made into kefir and know

> it's good for me!

How?

> Sorry I don't really see any point in reading the science
> against it when I have the first hand experience of drinking it.

> cheers.

You don't read the science "against" it. You read the science about
it, in order to end up better informed.

Drinking raw milk isn't going to make you feel worse if you have been
careful enough - or lucky enough - to buy your raw milk from suppliers
who test their product for TB and other interesting bacilli. Knowing
about the risks involved may make you more careful about where you get
your raw milk, and correspondingly less likely to run into the nasty
bugs that have shown up in raw milk from time to time. Your "first
hand experience" is going to be fine, right up to the moment when it
isn't. Science is all about combining the results of many people's
first hand experiences, and learning from the occasional bad
experiences.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Poor_Richard%27s_Almanack

"Experience keeps a dear school, yet fools will learn in no other".
Ben Franklin 1744.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jamie M]

Hi,

Human experience is the only way we are able to learn, its that lateral
thinking that allows you to learn from other people's experience. I
took a lot of different experience into account before I made my
decision to drink raw milk, but appreciate your scientific outlook on
it, one day the science will catch up.

cheers,
Jamie


>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

On Jun 5, 2:12 pm, Jamie M <jmor...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On 6/4/2013 5:05 AM,Bill Slomanwrote:

> Human experience is the only way we are able to learn, its that lateral
> thinking that allows you to learn from other people's experience.

The scientific method is the best we have for combining varied
experiences into a coherent whole. The twaddle you've been citing is
rather less persuasive.

>  I took a lot of different experience into account before I made my
> decision to drink raw milk, but appreciate your scientific outlook on
> it,

I rather doubt that you understand any of it. Your "appreciation"
clearly doesn't " recognize the quality, significance, or magnitude of
" the scientific evidence, otherwise you'd have given up the stupid
habit as soon as we exposed you to the evidence.

>one day the science will catch up.

The sad thing is that it's rather more likely that you silly habits
will catch up you than that the advance of scientific understanding
will reveal some magical property of raw milk that makes drinking it
worth running the risks that we do know about. If I were you I'd stop
spending the money on raw milk, and invest it playing the local
lottery - you'd end up with a better chance of a good outcome, and the
downside risk is significantly less - you'd be only risking your money
rather than your health.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jamie M]

Hi,

Science health advice is always changing and some scientists advocate
different diets, some low carb, some high carb, some low fat, some high
fat, same for protein, some say vitamins are good/bad etc, sun is
good/bad. There is a mass of conflicting health advice from science
showing that it is a poorly understood field. If you learn from history
you can see what healthy people ate and the civilizations that had low
incidence of disease, instead of reading poorly done studies.

[Bill Sloman]

On Jun 6, 7:14 am, Jamie M <jmor...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 5:29 AM,Bill Slomanwrote:

This isn't "science health advice", it's medical pontification. Alex
Comfort wrote a nice book on the subject titled "The Anxiety Makers"

http://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Anxiety_Makers.html?id=ZEYbAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y

Being Alex Comfort he wrote more about their silly ideas about sex
than their silly ideas about food, but he did cover both.

>  There is a mass of conflicting health advice from science
> showing that it is a poorly understood field.

There's nothing poorly understood about the dangers of drinking raw
milk, nor anything controversial in the sceince involved.

>  If you learn from history you can see what healthy
> people ate and the civilizations that had low
> incidence of disease, instead of reading poorly
> done studies.

Right. So the historical records include reliable reports on the
incidence of disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis

Tuberculosis - which is one of the diseases you are risking exposing
yourself to by drinking raw milk - has been one of the most common
diseases throughout recorded history. Only some 5% to 10% of people
who carry the infection manage to develop the active disease - it's
more likely if your immune system gets compromised by some other
problem - but it's not much fun when it happens, and you can infect a
lot of other people before you realise what's going on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Martin Brown]

Not necessarily. The dose makes the poison. Some sun is good for you and
without it you get rickets making a return as has happened in some
countries now obsessed with coating kids in 1000x factor suncream.

However, too *much* sun on fair skin can cause cancer. As far as diet is
concerned never underestimate the ability of crank lobby groups to plug
some weird and wonderful magic eat loads and stay slim scam diet.

The subject is well understood but the public is wilfully ignorant of
science and choose to eat too much, exercise too little and then wonder
why they have type II diabetes, high cholestrol and failing joints.

There is always a willing market for magical crank diets that promise to
help you lose pounds without any effort. Surprisingly people don't seem
to catch on that they don't really work in the longer term.

> If you learn from history
> you can see what healthy people ate and the civilizations that had low
> incidence of disease, instead of reading poorly done studies.
>
> cheers,
> Jamie

If you knew your history you would also know that a third of all
children died before they reached adulthood even as recently as 1900.
And that TB was a relentless killer in the developed world until WWII.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=infant+mortality+historical&id=E6A61D96A2CC5EB661E6473B60B8BB63A7AC0DE8&FORM=IQFRBA#view=detail&id=00D4D7021902640B76DD99178584AF96C4C910E7&selectedIndex=72

Death rates at the start of the last century were >2% pa for infants.

You conveniently ignore the black death, smallpox, anthrax and the fact
that before antibiotics the slightest infected injury could be lethal.
You live in a fantasy world where reality is suspended.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Jamie M]

Hi,

People that eat healthy are very resistant to getting diseases, most
disease outbreaks occur in places of poor nutrition. An example
of this is Luc Montagnier who was awarded a Nobel prize and discovered
the AIDS virus, has said AIDS can be prevented with proper nutrition, as
good nutrition gives a strong immune system. Drinking raw milk will
give a good immune system too, and the many toxins in factory milk will
most likely do the opposite.

Video of Luc Montagnier discussing nutrition and AIDS:
http://www.hivend.com/?p=1405

Also here is the link to the invited raw milk video presentation at the
BC Centre for Disease Control (1hour):

http://phsa.mediasite.com/mediasite/Play/b54b4be24bab4f4581ef0fdd8023d38d1d

These people are experts in the field and are open minded about raw
milk, and have a lot of responsibility regarding preventing disease,
and they are entertaining the idea of having legal raw milk, due to
its health benefits and also low health risk.

cheers,
Jamie

[Bill Sloman]

> > If you knew your history you would also know that a third of all
> > children died before they reached adulthood even as recently as 1900.
> > And that TB was a relentless killer in the developed world until WWII.
>

> >http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=infant+mortality+historical&id=E6...

>
> BB63A7AC0DE8&FORM=IQFRBA#view=detail&id=00D4D7021902640B76DD99178584AF96C4C910E7&selectedIndex=72
>
> > Death rates at the start of the last century were >2% pa for infants.
>
> > You conveniently ignore the black death, smallpox, anthrax and the fact
> > that before antibiotics the slightest infected injury could be lethal.
> > You live in a fantasy world where reality is suspended.
>
> Hi,
>
> People that eat healthy are very resistant to getting diseases, most
> disease outbreaks occur in places of poor nutrition.

True, but drinking raw milk doesn't consitute healthy eating - the
main constitutent of healthy eating is getting enough food to supply
your energy needs, with enough variety to supply the all the vitamin
and other trace nutrients that you need.

>An example
> of this is Luc Montagnier who was awarded a Nobel prize and discovered
> the AIDS virus,

He got his Nobel prize for his part in the discovery of the AIDS
virus, which isn't quite what you wrote. Since then he has endorsed
some controversial ideas. Brian Josephson is another Nobel Prize
winner who has silly ideas.

> has said AIDS can be prevented with proper nutrition, as
> good nutrition gives a strong immune system.

He's wrong.

>Drinking raw milk will give a good immune system too,

Not necessarily. If it's contaminated with th wrong bugs, it can wreck
your health and your immune system.

> and the many toxins in factory milk will
> most likely do the opposite.

Probably not - there aren't any "toxins" in pasteurised milk.

> Video of Luc Montagnier discussing nutrition and AIDS:http://www.hivend.com/?p=1405

<snipped more alternative medicine twaddle>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jamie M]

On 6/6/2013 4:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

>> An example
>> of this is Luc Montagnier who was awarded a Nobel prize and discovered
>> the AIDS virus,
>
> He got his Nobel prize for his part in the discovery of the AIDS
> virus, which isn't quite what you wrote. Since then he has endorsed
> some controversial ideas. Brian Josephson is another Nobel Prize
> winner who has silly ideas.
>
>> has said AIDS can be prevented with proper nutrition, as
>> good nutrition gives a strong immune system.
>
> He's wrong.
>
>> Drinking raw milk will give a good immune system too,
>
> Not necessarily. If it's contaminated with th wrong bugs, it can wreck
> your health and your immune system.
>
>> and the many toxins in factory milk will
>> most likely do the opposite.
>
> Probably not - there aren't any "toxins" in pasteurised milk.
>
>> Video of Luc Montagnier discussing nutrition and AIDS:http://www.hivend.com/?p=1405
>
> <snipped more alternative medicine twaddle>
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
>

Hi,

Here's a story in the Wall Street Journal that came out today about this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130611-909875.html

cheers,
Jamie

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 13 June 2013 09:56:32 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 6/6/2013 4:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >> An example
> >> of this is Luc Montagnier who was awarded a Nobel prize and discovered
> >> the AIDS virus,
> >
> > He got his Nobel prize for his part in the discovery of the AIDS
> > virus, which isn't quite what you wrote. Since then he has endorsed
> > some controversial ideas. Brian Josephson is another Nobel Prize
> > winner who has silly ideas.
> >
> >> has said AIDS can be prevented with proper nutrition, as
> >> good nutrition gives a strong immune system.
> >
> > He's wrong.
> >
> >> Drinking raw milk will give a good immune system too,
> >

> > Not necessarily. If it's contaminated with the wrong bugs, it can wreck

> > your health and your immune system.
> >
> >> and the many toxins in factory milk will
> >> most likely do the opposite.
> >
> > Probably not - there aren't any "toxins" in pasteurised milk.
> >
> >> Video of Luc Montagnier discussing nutrition and AIDS:http://www.hivend.com/?p=1405
> >
> > <snipped more alternative medicine twaddle>
>

> Here's a story in the Wall Street Journal that came out today about this:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130611-909875.html

This is just the Wall Street Journal, endorsing your alternative medicine guru, with quotes from other alternative medicine fruitcakes.

I like the quote from one of them "I look forward to productive discussion with the US CDC and Food and Drug Administration in light of this new scientific evidence." which is a fairly obvious indicator of a non-working brain - the scientific establishment isn't going to pay any attention to your alternative medicine fruitcakes.

Neither should you - they are just part of a PR machine for persuading people to swallow over-priced products that don't deliver what they promise.

I wonder if anybody had to be bribed to get the piece into the Wall Street Journal - they also publish quite a bit of denialist rubbish for the benefit of the fossil carbon extraction industries and may feel that it is their capitalist duty to reiterate stuff that makes wealthy people even richer at the expense of the rest of us.

In theory, the Wall Street Journal ought to congratulate itself whenever the US Gini index goes up again. It is absurdly high for an advanced industrial country, almost as high as China's, where the members of the Communist Party hog most of the goodies. Russia is way behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney