Vegan Youtube star who claimed her diet 'cured' her from cancer, dies from disease

[beetle]

www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/lifestyle/health-and-wellbeing/220218/vegan-youtube-star-who-claimed-her-diet-cured-her-from-cancer-dies.html

 

In a shocking case, Mari Lopez, who ran a food channel at home in Houston, Texas with her niece Liz Johnson, told thousands of viewers she had rejected traditional treatment for breast cancer in favour of a 90-day juice cleanse when she was diagnosed in 2015.

Lopez said that within four months of cutting out animal products she was in remission  and insisted the new regime (and God) had 'healed' her of her 'gay lifestyle'.

However, her niece Liz has now revealed that her aunt passed away in December 2017, after the disease spread to her blood, liver and lungs, and belated attempts to try chemotherapy and radiotherapy failed.

 

..............................

I hope this sends a message to people that some things are far too serious to try alternate ways.I hope guys like Ramdev understand that precious time is lost when they give false hope with very little facts and study to base such nonsense on

 

 

This is no different from some babaji giving false hope .

 

[Alam_dar]

My Experience, My Opinion: 

==================

It may be that alternative diet therapies are not "enough" to "cure" in cases of chronic diseases, especially in the last stages of  cancer. But for sure they still provide "health Benefits" over the normal SAD (standard American diet). 

 

Please understand the difference between "curing" and "health benefits". 

 

You are most probably going to die any way. But due to health benefits of alternative diets, the death is more often less painful. 

 

We must not discourage alternative diets while they could not "Heal" the disease, but we have to see things in "comparative" prospect where SAD diet is much more dangerous and painful for the patients. 

 

Therefore, alternative diets should be encouraged. Perhaps not as ONLY solution to the chronic diseases, but as extra helpful measure. 

 

Every one should experience himself:

 

(1) Eating lot of "raw" salad green leaves will indeed help you. While wild herbs are at the top where one would 100% feel the difference. I don't have words to explain it. Simply put, one feels "satisfaction". But you have to experience it yourself. 

 

(2) Juicing the raw vegetables is super for getting "Organic" (i.e. living) vitamins and minerals. You could never find these benefits while eating tons of cooked vegetables (even it they are steamed) while vitamins and minerals start dying if they are heated above 37 degree Celsius. 

 

Please note, "Fruit Juices" don't heal. 

But these are only the "Vegetable Juices" which heal. 

 

Carrots are not enough for healing, but you have to add juices of reddish (along with leaves), onions, garlic, mint leaves, celery (along with leaves), beets (along with leaves), ...

One becomes afraid of drinking juices of vegetables like reddish and onions. But don't be afraid. Just mix the few spoons (5% to 20%) of these vegetable juices with 40% carrot juice and 40% Fruit juice). After that it will be very easy to drink them. 

 

If you have pain due to any chronic diseases, then you will feel the difference and relief in the pain after drinking fresh vegetable juices. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Alam_dar

[Muloghonto]

On 2/23/2018 at 12:30 AM, Alam_dar said:

My Experience, My Opinion: 

==================

It may be that alternative diet therapies are not "enough" to "cure" in cases of chronic diseases, especially in the last stages of  cancer. But for sure they still provide "health Benefits" over the normal SAD (standard American diet). 

 

Please understand the difference between "curing" and "health benefits". 

 

You are most probably going to die any way. But due to health benefits of alternative diets, the death is more often less painful. 

 

We must not discourage alternative diets while they could not "Heal" the disease, but we have to see things in "comparative" prospect where SAD diet is much more dangerous and painful for the patients. 

 

Therefore, alternative diets should be encouraged. Perhaps not as ONLY solution to the chronic diseases, but as extra helpful measure. 

 

Every one should experience himself:

 

(1) Eating lot of "raw" salad green leaves will indeed help you. While wild herbs are at the top where one would 100% feel the difference. I don't have words to explain it. Simply put, one feels "satisfaction". But you have to experience it yourself. 

 

(2) Juicing the raw vegetables is super for getting "Organic" (i.e. living) vitamins and minerals. You could never find these benefits while eating tons of cooked vegetables (even it they are steamed) while vitamins and minerals start dying if they are heated above 37 degree Celsius. 

 

Please note, "Fruit Juices" don't heal. 

But these are only the "Vegetable Juices" which heal. 

 

Carrots are not enough for healing, but you have to add juices of reddish (along with leaves), onions, garlic, mint leaves, celery (along with leaves), beets (along with leaves), ...

One becomes afraid of drinking juices of vegetables like reddish and onions. But don't be afraid. Just mix the few spoons (5% to 20%) of these vegetable juices with 40% carrot juice and 40% Fruit juice). After that it will be very easy to drink them. 

 

If you have pain due to any chronic diseases, then you will feel the difference and relief in the pain after drinking fresh vegetable juices. 

Please show us evidence of the bolded & underlined part.

 

All these fad diets- especially the so-called raw-meat diet, is not only dangerous, its also against our evolutionary history.

 

[Texy]

Can't cure stupid

[Texy]

Lopez said that within four months of cutting out animal products she was in remission  and insisted the new regime (and God) had 'healed' her of her 'gay lifestyle'.

just like I suspected...another born again christian

[Alam_dar]

15 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Please show us evidence of the bolded & underlined part.

 

All these fad diets- especially the so-called raw-meat diet, is not only dangerous, its also against our evolutionary history.

Oh dear, I am afraid of your asking the Scientific Papers, as it is not my field. 

 

My field is to hear something, and then experience it myself personally, and if it suits then I believe in it. Nothing is better than personal experience.

 

There is absolutely no harm if one eats lot of Salads and green herbs and drink vegetable juices. If one finds all this benefiting him, then it is good, otherwise leave it and move forward. 

 

Now coming to the scientific part:

 

(1) There are studies which show that heating effects the vitamins and enzymes. Especially there are some vitamins who are very heat sensitive. 

 

Here one study:  Abstracts on the Effect of Pasteurization on the Nutritional Value of Milk

 

 

(2) About Vegetable Juices and their health effects:

 

 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02200-6

Vegetable/fruit juices provide polyphenols, oligosaccharides, fiber and nitrate (beet juice), which may induce a prebiotic-like effect. 

 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266591/

Fruit and vegetable juices may play an important role in delaying the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, particularly among those who are at high risk for the disease. These results may lead to a new avenue of inquiry in the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Oh dear, I am afraid of your asking the Scientific Papers, as it is not my field. 

 

My field is to hear something, and then experience it myself personally, and if it suits then I believe in it. Nothing is better than personal experience.

Completely disagree. Personal experience is irrelevant, ego-driven bullshit. There is such a thing called placebo effect, which in every study affects anywhere between 10-50% of the test subjects. What that means, is if you 'believe' in something, you will show 'effects' of that something working, without any actual scientific/material basis to it.  I can conduct the same experiment on you and clinically prove that what you 'feel' is tied to what you believe than your actual health effects of eating/drinking a certain thing. 

In short, you are just deluding yourself.

 

This is why personal, anecdotal experience has zero place in science. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

 

There is absolutely no harm if one eats lot of Salads and green herbs and drink vegetable juices. If one finds all this benefiting him, then it is good, otherwise leave it and move forward. 

 

Now coming to the scientific part:

 

(1) There are studies which show that heating effects the vitamins and enzymes. Especially there are some vitamins who are very heat sensitive. 

 

Here one study:  Abstracts on the Effect of Pasteurization on the Nutritional Value of Milk

 

You should read your sources:

Your sources openly state that pastuerization of milk is the leading cause for decline in milk-borne bacterial disease. 

So as i said, your health-craze 'pure vitamins are being destroyed oh no' is a dangerous and irresponsible position. I'd rather have less nutritious food, than dangerous food that will kill me. 

Same thing with the raw meats. Our bodies handle cooked meat far better than raw meat and its highly irresponsible to spread dangerous practices in the name of being 'more nutritious'. 

Just like how you wouldn't eat the world's healthiest salad thats crawling with tetanus bacteria over a McDonald's salad that is stale but not crawling with tetanus bacteria, the same logic applies. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

(2) About Vegetable Juices and their health effects:

 

 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02200-6

Vegetable/fruit juices provide polyphenols, oligosaccharides, fiber and nitrate (beet juice), which may induce a prebiotic-like effect. 

 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266591/

Fruit and vegetable juices may play an important role in delaying the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, particularly among those who are at high risk for the disease. These results may lead to a new avenue of inquiry in the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But where does it say that slow juicer is the way to go and not fast juicer and such random, made up nonsense ?

[MechEng]

Chemotherapy is hell, I know someone who went through chemo twice but still could not make it, I've seen them under chemotherapy and it's nothing less than hell on Earth. Cancer is one demon which even medical science has no answer to it. Everyting boils down to fate, some recover after first chemo while others face the inevitable.

 

Yoga does not cure cancer but it reduces the risk of getting a cancer. Carcinogens gain strength when the immune system of body weakens, and one of the major reasons for immune system weakening is chemical imbalance which is caused due to excessive negative energy present in the body. Yoga's aim is to achieve balance which removes negative energy and hence reduces risk of cancer. 

[Alam_dar]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Completely disagree. Personal experience is irrelevant, ego-driven bullshit. There is such a thing called placebo effect, which in every study affects anywhere between 10-50% of the test subjects. What that means, is if you 'believe' in something, you will show 'effects' of that something working, without any actual scientific/material basis to it.  I can conduct the same experiment on you and clinically prove that what you 'feel' is tied to what you believe than your actual health effects of eating/drinking a certain thing. 

In short, you are just deluding yourself.

But what if you are a sane person and don't let yourself drive from what others say? 

But what if you belong to that group of 90% to 50% people who don't have any placebo effect? 

 

I got health problems. I heard a lot about vegetarian diet (cooked). I gave up meat and became vegetarian. But neither I felt myself satisfied on that diet, nor it helped me cure myself. In fact I felt myself even terrible than the previous non veg diet. 

 

Then I heard about health benefits of green salad leaves and indeed when I started eating big bowl of green salads, along with tomatoes, onions, mint leaves etc. then I felt myself better satisfied than cooked vegetable.  Then adding the green tops of radish and turnips and beets brought more satisfaction. Then using Organic Vegetables showed me that they are more nutritious than conventional vegetables and salads. 

Then adding wild green herbs (like dandelions) brought even more satisfaction. 

 

Then I heard a lot about the Juices. But I felt no health benefits. Reason is this that I did a lot of Fruit Juicing and used only one vegetable occasionally which was carrot. I became dissatisfied and stopped juicing for many years. Also I was using pasteurized juices packs which are available in the markets, but they were even worst. 

 

It was only later when I discovered that as compared to the fruit juices, indeed vegetable juices do help me (although I didn't read about it at that time, and it was only my personal experiences which let me to this conclusion). 

I was already a big fan of green salad leaves and fully convinced that they bring health benefits to me. Sometimes I had lot of salads which went bad (as leaves go bad fast). But my normal centrifugal juicer was unable to juice the green salad leaves. There I came to know that there exist "Slow Juicers" which could even juice the green salad leaves. 

In order to consume all the salad leaves (and not to throw them) I started using the slow juicers, but realised that:

(1) Slow Juicers were making absolutely "Tasty" juices as compared to the "centrifugal juicers". There was less foam forming with slow juicers and the juices are not "brown" coloured as it often happened with centrifugal juicers (later I came to know about the reason too that that foam and more brown colour is due to the "oxidation" issue). 

(2) Through slow juicers, I was able to consume a big amount of green tops of reddish, carrots, beets, turnips, salads, mint, celery,  collards etc. More I used them, more I felt myself satisfied and also reduction in pain in my body. 

(3) Only after introducing big amount of vegetable juices, I was able to reduce the consumption of roti, rice and sweets.

Earlier, on normal SAD (Standard American Diet) I tried my best to reduce carbohydrates from roti, rice and sweets, but always failed. 

 

 

Then came the "good fats".

Normal vegetable oils, margarine never helped me. But using cold pressed virgin olive oils in my salads was tasty and I felt them more satisfying. Also I felt Butter and Ghee much better satisfying as compared to normal vegetable oils. 

Then I found Avocados and found raw fats of Avocados tasty and satisfying. 

Earlier I used coconut oil of KTC brand (India). But then I got hands to cold pressed virgin coconut oils from amazon. They were 4 times costly than Indian KTC brand, but absolutely tasty and satisfying. Now I use inferior KTC brand only from cooking, while superior quality coconut fat I eat raw (1-2 table spoons every day). 

Then I discovered the health benefits of raw milk cheese and raw milk butter too. 

 

Quote

 

You should read your sources:

Your sources openly state that pastuerization of milk is the leading cause for decline in milk-borne bacterial disease. 

So as i said, your health-craze 'pure vitamins are being destroyed oh no' is a dangerous and irresponsible position. I'd rather have less nutritious food, than dangerous food that will kill me. 

Yes, I fully agree with you that raw milk could be dangerous if not handled properly. Therefore, I previously wrote that I put high standards for using raw milk like:

(1) Milk should be taken from 100% Grass eating cows (i.e. No grains feed). 2nd Choice is this even if cows are given some grains, but still they are allowed to graze in the green fields too. Unfortunately, in commercial farms today, cows never graze on the green fields but stay only in their stalls. 

(2) Raw Milk should be immediately cooled to under +4 degree Celsius temperature and must be consumed in the next 3-5 days. 

 

If these high standards are maintained, then there should be no problem in consuming the raw milk (at least for big majority of people). Still you have to experience it yourself with small amount of raw milk in the beginning, and if does not suit you, then simply leave it. Nevertheless, if it suits you, then most certainly it brings a lot of health benefits as compared to the pasteurized milk as has been mentioned in the scientific studies. 

 

As compared to India/Pakistan, the Europeans had the culture of consuming raw milk for centuries (perhaps due to the reason that they have colder temperature). It was only the last century that commercial pasteurization became popular in Europe. 

 

Quote

Same thing with the raw meats. Our bodies handle cooked meat far better than raw meat and its highly irresponsible to spread dangerous practices in the name of being 'more nutritious'. 

We have already discussed it. 

Please go for every safety measure that you deem necessary. 
I put high standards for consuming raw meat, like fresh and 100% grass fed meat.

 

Inuits were using raw meats while only the raw meat got the capability to keep them warm for several weeks of hunting outside in cold temperature (Link). Cooked meat does not have this capability. 

 

There are cultures where raw meat and raw fish has been eaten for centuries. For example people from Germany, Belgium and Nietherland are eating METT for centuries:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett .

 

Here is the list of 15 popular raw meat dishes which have been consumed since centuries in different parts of the world:

https://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/15-raw-meat-dishes-from-around-the-world

 

If one want to stay on the very safe side, then one could use the Dried Meats (like Jerky and Pemmican), which have not pathogen problems while drying meat make them totally safe. 

 

Germany and Hollanders are using the raw fishes in form of Herring Matjes and roll mops which are totally safe today while fish is pre frozen. 

 

When I cook the Herring, then I don't feel the health benefits. But when I eat Matjes Herring (which is only fermented without cooking), then I feel the difference. Why? 
It is due to the reason that Herring is an oily fish, and it has a lot of Omega 3 (I don't know any other source of food which has so much omega 3). But this Omega 3 is very heat sensitive and thus cooked Herring does not have that benefits of Omega 3 as in case of Matjes. 

 

Grass fed meat also have the same Omega 3 benefit over the traditional grain fed meat (link).

And the grass fed raw milk and raw butter also have that same Omega 3 benefit over the traditional grain fed milk/butter (link: Increased concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids in milk and platelet rich plasma of grass-fed cows). 

 

Therefore, heating milk and cooking meat again destroy big part of this omega 3 content along with other enzymes and vitamins. 

 

 

Quote

But where does it say that slow juicer is the way to go and not fast juicer and such random, made up nonsense ?

It's OK if one keep on using the normal centrifugal juicers.

Most Important thing is this that one drinks lot of fresh vegetable juices (although normal centrifugal juicers could not juice the green leaves of reddish, carrots, turnips, beets etc which have 3 times more minerals and vitamins as compared to their roots). 

 

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

But what if you are a sane person and don't let yourself drive from what others say? 

Sure. But you are not in a position to self-judge that. As the saying goes 'the problem with crazy people is they do not know they are crazy' 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

But what if you belong to that group of 90% to 50% people who don't have any placebo effect? 

Again, this cannot be self-judged. 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I got health problems. I heard a lot about vegetarian diet (cooked). I gave up meat and became vegetarian. But neither I felt myself satisfied on that diet, nor it helped me cure myself. In fact I felt myself even terrible than the previous non veg diet. 

Sure. That may have nothing to do with the diet itself and it may just be YOUR body. It may just be YOUR enzyme level or your allergenic reaction to certain foods, etc. 
So you are in no position to determine, by the process of self-diagnosis, that what works for you is not a personal quirk of your own body. 

 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Yes, I fully agree with you that raw milk could be dangerous if not handled properly. Therefore, I previously wrote that I put high standards for using raw milk like:

(1) Milk should be taken from 100% Grass eating cows (i.e. No grains feed). 2nd Choice is this even if cows are given some grains, but still they are allowed to graze in the green fields too. Unfortunately, in commercial farms today, cows never graze on the green fields but stay only in their stalls. 

(2) Raw Milk should be immediately cooled to under +4 degree Celsius temperature and must be consumed in the next 3-5 days. 

Again, this is dangerous nonsense. Grass fed or non grass fed has nothing to do with microbial content of milk. 
Raw milk should not be consumed, period, because its dangerous to consume raw milk. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

If these high standards are maintained, then there should be no problem in consuming the raw milk (at least for big majority of people). Still you have to experience it yourself with small amount of raw milk in the beginning, and if does not suit you, then simply leave it. Nevertheless, if it suits you, then most certainly it brings a lot of health benefits as compared to the pasteurized milk as has been mentioned in the scientific studies. 

Utterly false. These standards have nothing to do with bacterial content in raw milk, anymore than what you eat/dont eat changing the bacterial cultures on your own skin. Thinking it does, demosntrates lack of understanding of biology. 

As i keep saying, health benefits of nutrition are secondary concern to whether a product is safe or unsafe to consume. The world's healthiest salad covered in ebola is a worse option than a stale but sterilized McDonald's burger. 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

As compared to India/Pakistan, the Europeans had the culture of consuming raw milk for centuries (perhaps due to the reason that they have colder temperature). It was only the last century that commercial pasteurization became popular in Europe. 

And Europe had much greater prevalence of botulism and death from botulism before pasteurization. 

 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

We have already discussed it. 

Please go for every safety measure that you deem necessary. 
I put high standards for consuming raw meat, like fresh and 100% grass fed meat.

None of those standards have anything to do with the bacterial content in the meat. You seem to be under this false notion that healthier animals = less bacteria in their meat. Thats not how it works. Most megafauna (which means animals that are not microscripic) have symbiotic relationship with dozens upon dozens of bacteria types. These bacterias live in the bodies of their host and varies from type of host. And its these bacterias that are dangerous for consumption for humans. 
 

So it doesnt matter how healthy your cow is. The bacteria in its meat is dangerous to us, period. 

 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Inuits were using raw meats while only the raw meat got the capability to keep them warm for several weeks of hunting outside in cold temperature (Link). Cooked meat does not have this capability. 

Inuits did not have the ability to cook their meat due to lack of fire. And sure enogh, as soon as modern tech caught up with them, their inferior raw meat diet started to decline and inuit life expectancy went up. 

 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

There are cultures where raw meat and raw fish has been eaten for centuries. For example people from Germany, Belgium and Nietherland are eating METT for centuries:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett .

 

Here is the list of 15 popular raw meat dishes which have been consumed since centuries in different parts of the world:

https://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/15-raw-meat-dishes-from-around-the-world

And there is correspondigly higher prevalence of botulism and food poisoning in these cultures due to eating dangerous raw meat. 

 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

If one want to stay on the very safe side, then one could use the Dried Meats (like Jerky and Pemmican), which have not pathogen problems while drying meat make them totally safe. 

Dried meats are not raw meats because the meat is no longer in its raw form. Raw does not mean subject to heat, it means subject to change in the structure of the meat by any process - curing is such a process too, so is subject to heat. 

 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Germany and Hollanders are using the raw fishes in form of Herring Matjes and roll mops which are totally safe today while fish is pre frozen. 

And if you eat raw fish from the Mekong in Thailand, you will die of liver cancer caused by liver flukes. So it depends on type of fish. 
Yet, cooking every type of fish will ensure that you will never get liver cancer from liver flukes. Proof that cooking is safer than this raw diet nonsense. 

 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

When I cook the Herring, then I don't feel the health benefits. But when I eat Matjes Herring (which is only fermented without cooking), then I feel the difference. Why? 

Pyschosomatic process. You believe in something, so you are experiencing the placebo effect. 'feeling health benefit' from eating something is the biggest load of nonsense there is. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

It is due to the reason that Herring is an oily fish, and it has a lot of Omega 3 (I don't know any other source of food which has so much omega 3). But this Omega 3 is very heat sensitive and thus cooked Herring does not have that benefits of Omega 3 as in case of Matjes. 

Prove to us that Omega 3 is heat sensetive. 

 

[Muloghonto]

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/consequences-eating-rare-meat-10828.html

These are the dangers of eating raw meat. And no amount of 'grass fed cows or ethically farmed fish' will get rid of these bacterias from their meats, because these bacterias live in symbiotic relationship with the said animals. 

kindly stop propagating dangerous eating habits in the name of health-fads, especially when they are unscientific, untested nonsense propagated by self-diagnosing youtuber-types.

 

[Alam_dar]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Sure. But you are not in a position to self-judge that. As the saying goes 'the problem with crazy people is they do not know they are crazy' 

Again, this cannot be self-judged. 

Sure. That may have nothing to do with the diet itself and it may just be YOUR body. It may just be YOUR enzyme level or your allergenic reaction to certain foods, etc. 
So you are in no position to determine, by the process of self-diagnosis, that what works for you is not a personal quirk of your own body. 

So you are saying I have no proof that I belong to the 10% to 50% group effected by placebo. 
And I say you don't have any proof that I don't belong to the 90% to 50% group which has no placebo effect. 

And you could see that I have better chances to be right as my ration lies between 90 to 50, while your lies between 10 to 50.

 

Then I have external witnesses, perhaps in millions, which say that indeed raw diet brought positive results for them. 

 

Then we have indeed science too attesting that raw food products have more nutrition value and vitamins and enzymes die due to heating. 

 

Your only argument is this that raw diet could be harmful due to the presence of bacterias and pathogens. 

 

While my argument is this that today we know how to "Properly Handle" the raw foods in order to avoid this. Today we have refrigerators which were not present in the earlier centuries. 

Quote

 

Again, this is dangerous nonsense. Grass fed or non grass fed has nothing to do with microbial content of milk. 
Raw milk should not be consumed, period, because its dangerous to consume raw milk. 

Utterly false. These standards have nothing to do with bacterial content in raw milk, anymore than what you eat/dont eat changing the bacterial cultures on your own skin. Thinking it does, demosntrates lack of understanding of biology. 
As i keep saying, health benefits of nutrition are secondary concern to whether a product is safe or unsafe to consume.

And Europe had much greater prevalence of botulism and death from botulism before pasteurization. 

Indeed botulism is caused due to poor diet of cattle and poor health of cattle, and indeed 100% grass fed high quality meet is good to avoid such dangers. 

//

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20301016

Clostridium botulinum in cattle and dairy products

The use of plastic-wrapped and nonacidified silage as cattle feed has led to an increasing number of botulism outbreaks due to Clostridium botulinum Groups I-III in dairy cattle. The involvement of Groups I and II organisms in cattle botulism has raised concern of human botulism risk associated with the consumption of dairy products. Multiplication of C. botulinum in silage and in the gastrointestinal tract of cattle with botulism has been reported, thus contamination of the farm environment and raw milk, and further transmission through the dairy chain, are possible. The standard milk pasteurization treatment does not eliminate spores, and the intrinsic factors of many dairy products allow botulinal growth and toxin production. Although rare, several large botulism outbreaks due to both commercial and home-prepared dairy products have been reported.

//

 

As far as microbes are concerned, then prime reason was poor handling of raw milk in the earlier centuries due to the absence of refrigerators. Today we know the reasons and could handle them better. 

 

Quote

The world's healthiest salad covered in ebola is a worse option than a stale but sterilized McDonald's burger. 

I am afraid this is huge exaggeration. 

Consuming raw foods is absolutely not so dangerous as it is advertised.  You are allowed to buy raw milk, raw butter, raw cheese all over Europe and America and Canada. 

 

And indeed the "Health Benefits" of raw milk are HUGE as compared to the pasteurized milk, which is some what harmful to the health. Therefore, I wonder how could you still say that health benefits of raw milk are negligible. 

 

https://www.seleneriverpress.com/historical/abstracts-on-the-effect-of-pasteurization-on-the-nutritional-value-of-milk/

 

Summary: At the turn of the twentieth century, sanitary conditions on many American dairy farms were deplorable, and it was not uncommon for humans to become infected by dangerous microbes transmitted in cow’s milk. While many officials pressed for sanitary regulations that would force producers to provide safe raw milk to the public, other powers pushed for another, less expensive option: pasteurization. Heating milk to high temperatures allowed germ-infested product to be sold to the public instead of being discarded. But while pasteurization did help neutralize many of the pathogens introduced by unscrupulous dairy farms, it had another, rather significant consequence that has gone long ignored. In short, pasteurizing milk destroys its nutritive value, as this collection of research abstracts from the 1930s shows. Whereas the studies report raw milk to promote growth, immunity, and excellent health in general, pasteurized milk was shown to do almost the complete opposite, inviting vitamin deficiency and disease in people who drink it, particularly infants. Even its calcium supply was shown to be highly unusable, making “scalded milk” one of the great impostors of modern food manufacturing.

 

Therefore, difference is HUGE and not negligible. 

And due to pasteurization, the real problems of sanitary conditions, bad health of cattle, botulism in cattle were not taken care off. 

Today we have grain fed milk which has almost zero Omega 3, and rest of omega 3 is destroyed due to heating. 

 

Quote

None of those standards have anything to do with the bacterial content in the meat. You seem to be under this false notion that healthier animals = less bacteria in their meat. Thats not how it works. Most megafauna (which means animals that are not microscripic) have symbiotic relationship with dozens upon dozens of bacteria types. These bacterias live in the bodies of their host and varies from type of host. And its these bacterias that are dangerous for consumption for humans. 
So it doesnt matter how healthy your cow is. The bacteria in its meat is dangerous to us, period. 

I must again repeat, the meat of ill cattle have botulism and other problems. Thus high quality grass fed meat is the way to go. 

And today we know how to handle the meat much better than the earlier centuries. 

 

Today all over the world raw meat is consumed. The dangers from raw meat are hugely exaggerated. Whole western world is consuming raw meat or raw fish. 

 

So, if you have no problems consuming the raw meats and have omega 3 and other living vitamins and enzymes, why then to go for not so healthy option of cooking?

 

Quote

Inuits did not have the ability to cook their meat due to lack of fire. And sure enogh, as soon as modern tech caught up with them, their inferior raw meat diet started to decline and inuit life expectancy went up. 

I invite you to read the "FIRST" study about the Inuit which was done in 1822 before Inuit came into contact with the western world. 

 

//

LINK

This study shows that: 

(1) Short life expectancy was not due to the "Health Issues" or diseases.

(2) But it was due to the hard circumstances in which they were living. 

(3) Most of the deaths occurred in the infancy. 

(4) While 2nd biggest cause of deaths were natural accidents due to weather. It was the main reason for short life average of Inuits.

(5) Old people were not dying due to diseases. 

(6) The old people living up to 105 years of age. 

//

 

Thus Inuit lived up to 105 years, mostly disease free, only on 100% Raw Meat Diet,  in the absolute absence of:

(1) Vegetables, wheat and rice

(2) Green Salads

(3) Fruits

(4) Medication (They got no herbs as we had Ayurveda in India). 

 

In India, if you used only 100% "Cooked Meat Diet", then you are not even going to live for 5 years. Yes, you will die within 5 years on this diet. 

It was only the  "RAW" angle, which helped Inuit to live up to 105 years. 

 

After contact with the Western world, Inuit started eating wheat and legumes and other cooked food, which resulted in all the diseases which the Western world have. 

 

 

Quote

Dried meats are not raw meats because the meat is no longer in its raw form. Raw does not mean subject to heat, it means subject to change in the structure of the meat by any process - curing is such a process too, so is subject to heat. 

Call it whatever you want. 

But if you are drying the meat under the sun, and the temperature is not above 37 degree Celsius, then go for the dried meat as it is healthy while it has living vitamins and enzymes. 

 

Quote

Prove to us that Omega 3 is heat sensetive. 

//

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550962/

The chemical changes in tuna (fish) subjected to cooking, frying, canning and microwave heating were studied ...  The total saturated fatty acids suffered major loss in fried (70%) and canned tuna (40%) due to loss of C16:0, C14:0 and C22:0. The monounsaturated fatty acids (bad fats) content increased (38%) in cooked and microwave heated tuna due to C24:1. The polyunsaturated fatty acids content increased in fried (50%) and canned (25%) tuna due to the uptake of frying and filling oil, respectively during processing. The loss of health beneficial ω-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA were minimum in cooked tuna followed by microwave heated tuna. Canning totally destroyed these fatty acids. In fried tuna, the losses of EPA and DHA were 70 and 85%, respectively. Thiobarbituric acid — reactive substances values increased in heat processed tuna. Cholesterol increased in canned and microwave heated

//

[dial_100]

People are living luxurious life here then why cancer to a 3 years old or 10-30 yo kids? It is unbelievable. Why? Why cancer?

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

So you are saying I have no proof that I belong to the 10% to 50% group effected by placebo. 
And I say you don't have any proof that I don't belong to the 90% to 50% group which has no placebo effect. 

And you could see that I have better chances to be right as my ration lies between 90 to 50, while your lies between 10 to 50.

This is nothing more than narcissitic bullshit. You are basically telling me, that with literally 50-50 chance of being right or wrong, you'd rather believe that what you are doing to your own body is 'right' than be humble, get the education (scientific- not just being a google master) and being a responsible person.

Ie, classic, narcissitic 'i know i am right' BS.

 

I don't need to prove that you are NOT of the placebo group. Thats not how science works. Science works in proving a positive in most cases - you need to prove that your observation is not placebo effect. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Then I have external witnesses, perhaps in millions, which say that indeed raw diet brought positive results for them. 

Pffft. 

a few million idiots out of 7 billion is nothing. There are also millions of flat-earthers on this planet. 

These people you are part of, are of two categories : 

a) Change for the sake of change and anything different = better

b) attention-seeking idiots who think a few weeks of youtube and google searches overrides years of professional education in nutrition. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Then we have indeed science too attesting that raw food products have more nutrition value and vitamins and enzymes die due to heating. 

 

Your only argument is this that raw diet could be harmful due to the presence of bacterias and pathogens. 

 

While my argument is this that today we know how to "Properly Handle" the raw foods in order to avoid this. Today we have refrigerators which were not present in the earlier centuries. 

Indeed botulism is caused due to poor diet of cattle and poor health of cattle, and indeed 100% grass fed high quality meet is good to avoid such dangers. 

Your argument is 100% BS. There is zero evidence that diet of cattle or other animals has any effect whatsoever to the level of symbiotic bacterias found in their meat. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

//

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20301016

Clostridium botulinum in cattle and dairy products

The use of plastic-wrapped and nonacidified silage as cattle feed has led to an increasing number of botulism outbreaks due to Clostridium botulinum Groups I-III in dairy cattle. The involvement of Groups I and II organisms in cattle botulism has raised concern of human botulism risk associated with the consumption of dairy products. Multiplication of C. botulinum in silage and in the gastrointestinal tract of cattle with botulism has been reported, thus contamination of the farm environment and raw milk, and further transmission through the dairy chain, are possible. The standard milk pasteurization treatment does not eliminate spores, and the intrinsic factors of many dairy products allow botulinal growth and toxin production. Although rare, several large botulism outbreaks due to both commercial and home-prepared dairy products have been reported.

//

Don't cherry-pick.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221549/

 

Read and weep.

" extensive research was conducted to determine the heat treatment required to kill Mycobacterium tuberculosis which, at the time, was considered to be the most heat-resistant pathogen associated with milk (Hammer, 1948). "

 

"In 1956, minimal pasteurization temperatures were slightly increased to those listed in Table 7.1 to assure destruction of Coxiella burnetti, the organism associated with Q fever, which was found to be more heat resistant than M. tuberculosis (Enright et al., 1957)."

 

"The pasteurization conditions described in Table 7.1 were found to result in destruction of 100,000 infective guinea pig doses of C. burnetti. Therefore, on July 16, 1956, the U.S. Assistant Surgeon General released a recommendation for a minimum raw milk heat treatment of 145°F for 30 min or 161°F for 15 sec to ensure protection of the public from exposure to C. burnetti through consumption of milk."

 

 

So thanks to pasteurization, milk is no longer a carrier for tuberculosis, Q-fever and such like.

 

As i said, keep your 'raw stuff is healthier' nonsense out of public space. Raw stuff is dangerous. Clinically proven. Its better to eat safe and less nutritious food than unsafe & more nutritious food.

 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

As far as microbes are concerned, then prime reason was poor handling of raw milk in the earlier centuries due to the absence of refrigerators. Today we know the reasons and could handle them better. 

BS. Read the article i presented. Refrigeration does nothing to contain tuberculosis or Q-fever bacteria in milk. 
You are simply spreading wrong & dangerous info because its your belief system.

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I am afraid this is huge exaggeration. 

Consuming raw foods is absolutely not so dangerous as it is advertised.  You are allowed to buy raw milk, raw butter, raw cheese all over Europe and America and Canada. 

it absolutely is as dangerous as advertised. You steered away from the simple fact that Thailand has the highest case of liver cancer in the world, all from eating raw fish found in thailand which has liver flukes in them. 

This is what eating raw food gets you - closer to death. 
Which is why our ancestors invented cooking - to ward off death from eating dangerous raw meats & fish.

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

And indeed the "Health Benefits" of raw milk are HUGE as compared to the pasteurized milk, which is some what harmful to the health. Therefore, I wonder how could you still say that health benefits of raw milk are negligible. 

 

https://www.seleneriverpress.com/historical/abstracts-on-the-effect-of-pasteurization-on-the-nutritional-value-of-milk/

 

Summary: At the turn of the twentieth century, sanitary conditions on many American dairy farms were deplorable, and it was not uncommon for humans to become infected by dangerous microbes transmitted in cow’s milk. While many officials pressed for sanitary regulations that would force producers to provide safe raw milk to the public, other powers pushed for another, less expensive option: pasteurization. Heating milk to high temperatures allowed germ-infested product to be sold to the public instead of being discarded. But while pasteurization did help neutralize many of the pathogens introduced by unscrupulous dairy farms, it had another, rather significant consequence that has gone long ignored. In short, pasteurizing milk destroys its nutritive value, as this collection of research abstracts from the 1930s shows. Whereas the studies report raw milk to promote growth, immunity, and excellent health in general, pasteurized milk was shown to do almost the complete opposite, inviting vitamin deficiency and disease in people who drink it, particularly infants. Even its calcium supply was shown to be highly unusable, making “scalded milk” one of the great impostors of modern food manufacturing.

Pfft. more propaganda. 

 

http://articles.extension.org/pages/27734/the-benefits-of-pasteurized-milk

https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm079516.htm

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/the-doctor-who-is-fighting-against-the-thai-dish-that-killed-his-parents/

 

"The dish is something known as koi pla, a cheap meal made by mincing raw fish with herbs, spices, and lemon juice, and is particularly popular in one of Thailand’s poorest regions, Isaan. Eaten by millions of people, the dish is also known to have a deadly side effect: It can cause those who eat it to develop fatal liver cancer."

 

"Although some claim that raw milk has improved nutritional value, cures diseases, and even tastes better, raw milk has no scientifically documented health benefits. It is strongly discouraged for children, those that are pregnant, elderly, and those with weakened immune systems because they have the greatest risk of food borne illness from raw milk and milk products. Pregnant women also run the additional risk of miscarriage. Is pasteurized milk really safer? Yes! Pasteurization is not just another form of processing that should be eliminated. It is not a process that is mandated to save time or money, but rather a process that is designed for the safety of the consumer.

Sources: 
Bradley J, Pickering LK, Jareb J. Advise families against giving children unpasteurized milk. AAP News. 2008:29(12):29.

Oliver SP, Boor KJ, Murphy SC, Murinda SE. Food safety hazards associated with consumption of raw milk. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2009;6(7):793-806."

 

Keep your propagana sites, with zero citation of medical authority and sources, to yourself. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Therefore, difference is HUGE and not negligible. 

And due to pasteurization, the real problems of sanitary conditions, bad health of cattle, botulism in cattle were not taken care off. 

Today we have grain fed milk which has almost zero Omega 3, and rest of omega 3 is destroyed due to heating. 

BS. My article demonstrates that pasteurization kills tuberculosis bacteria in milk. Present us a scientific study that grass fed cows do not secrete tuberculosis bacteria into their milk. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I must again repeat, the meat of ill cattle have botulism and other problems. Thus high quality grass fed meat is the way to go. 

And today we know how to handle the meat much better than the earlier centuries. 

Doesn't matter how we handle it. The contents of raw meat & milk products is what makes it dangerous. Freezing or chilling it does not kill the dangerous bacterias in raw foods.

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Today all over the world raw meat is consumed. The dangers from raw meat are hugely exaggerated. Whole western world is consuming raw meat or raw fish. 

Western world does not consume raw fish. Sushi fish is not raw fish. its chemically treated fish. 

Thai people eat raw fish and they have the highest prevalence rate of liver cancer due to liver flukes in raw fish. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

So, if you have no problems consuming the raw meats and have omega 3 and other living vitamins and enzymes, why then to go for not so healthy option of cooking?

Because safety of my food is way more important than nutritional value of my food.

A piece of cardboard is more prefferable to eat than the best salad in the world with an AIDS patient's virus smeared over it. 

How difficult is that to understand ?!?

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I invite you to read the "FIRST" study about the Inuit which was done in 1822 before Inuit came into contact with the western world. 

 

//

LINK

This study shows that: 

(1) Short life expectancy was not due to the "Health Issues" or diseases.

(2) But it was due to the hard circumstances in which they were living. 

(3) Most of the deaths occurred in the infancy. 

(4) While 2nd biggest cause of deaths were natural accidents due to weather. It was the main reason for short life average of Inuits.

(5) Old people were not dying due to diseases. 

(6) The old people living up to 105 years of age. 

//

 

Thus Inuit lived up to 105 years, mostly disease free, only on 100% Raw Meat Diet,  in the absolute absence of:

(1) Vegetables, wheat and rice

(2) Green Salads

(3) Fruits

(4) Medication (They got no herbs as we had Ayurveda in India). 

 

Every culture has a tiny % of people living up to 100+ years. Inuits are no special in this way and its a proven fact that Inuit life expectancy has massively increased due to modern medicine and modern food, while their life-expectancy in adulthood was far lower than their tribal counterparts elsewhere, who ate cooked food. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

In India, if you used only 100% "Cooked Meat Diet", then you are not even going to live for 5 years. Yes, you will die within 5 years on this diet. 

Everyone in India eats 100% cooked meat diet. Every single person. Last Indians are not dying within 5 years of eating cooked meat.

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

It was only the  "RAW" angle, which helped Inuit to live up to 105 years. 

Nonsense & false propaganda. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

After contact with the Western world, Inuit started eating wheat and legumes and other cooked food, which resulted in all the diseases which the Western world have. 

The disease they have, is due to massively greater life-expectancy. 

When only 10% of your population makes it past 60, they are naturally going to have far less amount of 'old people diseases' like Cancer, Alzheimers, etc, compared to a society where 40-50% of people make it to 60+.

 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Call it whatever you want. 

But if you are drying the meat under the sun, and the temperature is not above 37 degree Celsius, then go for the dried meat as it is healthy while it has living vitamins and enzymes. 

It is not raw, because it is treated with chemicals to change the chemical composition of the meat. The objective is to kill the bacteria in the meat. its most readily accomplished by cooking the meat. but exposure to sunlight under high salt load can do the same thing.

Same way Sushi fish isn't raw. Nobody eats sushi straight-away carved from a fish just caught out of the ocean. its illegal, dangerous and not recommended. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

//

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550962/

The chemical changes in tuna (fish) subjected to cooking, frying, canning and microwave heating were studied ...  The total saturated fatty acids suffered major loss in fried (70%) and canned tuna (40%) due to loss of C16:0, C14:0 and C22:0. The monounsaturated fatty acids (bad fats) content increased (38%) in cooked and microwave heated tuna due to C24:1. The polyunsaturated fatty acids content increased in fried (50%) and canned (25%) tuna due to the uptake of frying and filling oil, respectively during processing. The loss of health beneficial ω-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA were minimum in cooked tuna followed by microwave heated tuna. Canning totally destroyed these fatty acids. In fried tuna, the losses of EPA and DHA were 70 and 85%, respectively. Thiobarbituric acid — reactive substances values increased in heat processed tuna. Cholesterol increased in canned and microwave heated

//

Your own link says that the loss of omega-3 acids were minimal in cooked tuna and only present in fried tuna. Ie, no surprise that oils break down in presence of other oil sources (the frying oil) but cooked normally, remains unaffected.

 

As i have said and proven with links, raw fish + raw meat + raw milk = dangerous and medically NOT recommended. 

Doctors know more about nutrition and food than you do. A few youtube video clicks, self-medicating and a sky-high ego that thinks your 100 hours of dithering on the internet can override 20,000 hours of professional study & experience, doesn't make it so.

 

[Alam_dar]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

This is nothing more than narcissitic bullshit. You are basically telling me, that with literally 50-50 chance of being right or wrong, you'd rather believe that what you are doing to your own body is 'right' than be humble, get the education (scientific- not just being a google master) and being a responsible person.

Ie, classic, narcissitic 'i know i am right' BS.

 

I don't need to prove that you are NOT of the placebo group. Thats not how science works. Science works in proving a positive in most cases - you need to prove that your observation is not placebo effect. 

 

Pffft. 

a few million idiots out of 7 billion is nothing. There are also millions of flat-earthers on this planet. 

These people you are part of, are of two categories : 

a) Change for the sake of change and anything different = better

b) attention-seeking idiots who think a few weeks of youtube and google searches overrides years of professional education in nutrition. 

 

Your argument is 100% BS.

I wonder how you are unable to still grab it that it is not a placebo effect while "SCIENCE" has itself proved that raw milk has much more healthy qualities than the pasteurized milk. 

 

https://www.seleneriverpress.com/historical/abstracts-on-the-effect-of-pasteurization-on-the-nutritional-value-of-milk/

 

...In short, pasteurizing milk destroys its nutritive value, as this collection of research abstracts from the 1930s shows. Whereas the studies report raw milk to promote growth, immunity, and excellent health in general, pasteurized milk was shown to do almost the complete opposite, inviting vitamin deficiency and disease in people who drink it, particularly infants. Even its calcium supply was shown to be highly unusable, making “scalded milk” one of the great impostors of modern food manufacturing.

 

After this scientific study, your claim of 50% placebo effect has been totally come to an end. Please mark it, it is not a placebo effect, but the reality. 

 

Moreover, you could see that difference in health benefits are "HUGE" and not "minimal" as claimed. 

 

Quote

 

There is zero evidence that diet of cattle or other animals has any effect whatsoever to the level of symbiotic bacterias found in their meat. 

 

Don't cherry-pick.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221549/

 

Read and weep.

" extensive research was conducted to determine the heat treatment required to kill Mycobacterium tuberculosis which, at the time, was considered to be the most heat-resistant pathogen associated with milk (Hammer, 1948). "

 

"In 1956, minimal pasteurization temperatures were slightly increased to those listed in Table 7.1 to assure destruction of Coxiella burnetti, the organism associated with Q fever, which was found to be more heat resistant than M. tuberculosis (Enright et al., 1957)."

 

"The pasteurization conditions described in Table 7.1 were found to result in destruction of 100,000 infective guinea pig doses of C. burnetti. Therefore, on July 16, 1956, the U.S. Assistant Surgeon General released a recommendation for a minimum raw milk heat treatment of 145°F for 30 min or 161°F for 15 sec to ensure protection of the public from exposure to C. burnetti through consumption of milk."

 

So thanks to pasteurization, milk is no longer a carrier for tuberculosis, Q-fever and such like.

 

I wonder if you have read this report completely?

You are blaming me for cherry picking, but this same scientific paper is mentioning the Q-fever and other diseases due to the presence of C.burnetti, associated with the ill cattle as it could not live outside the host body of ill cattle and those human are mostly endangered from it who have "compromised immune system" i.e. weak people. 

//

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221549/

 

Q fever, which was first described in the mid-1930s, is a rickettsial disease characterized by chills, fever, weakness, and headache, with endocarditis as a possible complication in immunocompromised patients. C. burnetti is an obligate intracellular parasite that cannot multiply outside of living host cells ... Experiments to ascertain the thermal destruction of C. burnetti are technically challenging because the presence of this organism in a heat-treated milk sample can only be measured indirectly by assessing the presence and concentration of antibodies in a host animal that has been inoculated with a sample of the milk ...  The objectives of this study were to determine the maximum number of C. burnetti that might be found in the milk of an infected cow.

//

 

Therefore, Q-fever due to C.burnetti is basically an issue of sanitation. Therefore it is important to use milk of healthy cows which are 100% grass fed. Not only this reduces the dangers of Q-fever, but also includes additional benefit of having lot of omega 3 in grass fed milk as compared to the grain fed milk. 

 

People also raise question if C.burnetti is unable to live without the host animal, how then it still remain alive in raw milk? 

 

Here you could read in details that raw milk is wrongfully accused of Q-Fever (perhaps on the behalf of strong commercial dairy industry which does not want to improve the sanitation and other health and feed related issues of the cattle). 

 

http://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ResponsetoMarlerListofStudies.pdf

 

Quote

As i said, keep your 'raw stuff is healthier' nonsense out of public space. Raw stuff is dangerous. Clinically proven. Its better to eat safe and less nutritious food than unsafe & more nutritious food.

And I want to state again and again that dangers from raw milk are over exaggerated. Today we know the reasons and thus able to take the precautions and thus consume the very healthy food safely. 

 

For example, take these steps:

 

(1) Make sure the cattle are absolutely healthy and are 100% grass fed.

 

(2) Make sure all other sanitary issues. Make sure milk is immediately cooled down under +4 degree Celsius which keeps that numbers of bacteria in check and don't let them increase. It is same what same as drinking mother milk which is also not pasteurized if infant takes it directly from mother without and delay. But even mother milk has to be put in the fridge or even pasteurized if there is delay in feeding while then numbers of bacteria grow with high temperature. 

 

(3) If you have compromised immune system, then avoid raw milk. 

 

(4) Start with only 1-2 spoons full of raw milk. If no ill effects are seen, then gradually increase the amount. 

Even people with compromised immune systems could also follow this step to gradually increased their tolerance for the raw milk. 

 

Quote

it absolutely is as dangerous as advertised. You steered away from the simple fact that Thailand has the highest case of liver cancer in the world, all from eating raw fish found in thailand which has liver flukes in them. 

I don't know about the sanitation and other issues in Thailand. But after reading, it seems that:

 

(1) This issue of tape worm is limited only to some fresh water fish, while sea fish is totally safe for consumption (link)

(2) And among fresh water fish too, this worm is only found in the area of Thailand and neighbouring countries (link). 

(3) It takes 50 years to the infection to become fatal. It is enough time to cure it with medicine. But people in Thailand are reinfected with the worm again and again. 

(4) Despite eating raw fish whole of their life,  still 20% of Thai population does not have the worms. 

(5) Thai people are not freezing their fish. Freezing will kill all the parasites even in the fresh water fish and make it safe for consumption. 

 

Therefore, eating Sushi in Europe/America is totally safe (even if the fresh water fish is used). And regulations say that Sushi fish has to be pre frozen. 

 

 

Quote

 

Pfft. more propaganda. 

 

http://articles.extension.org/pages/27734/the-benefits-of-pasteurized-milk

 

 

Its not a propaganda, but scientific study:

https://www.seleneriverpress.com/historical/abstracts-on-the-effect-of-pasteurization-on-the-nutritional-value-of-milk/

 

Quote

Keep your propagana sites, with zero citation of medical authority and sources, to yourself. 

Medical authority sources have been presented above. Moreover, for a very detailed response, read it here:

 

http://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ResponsetoMarlerListofStudies.pdf

 

Quote

Western world does not consume raw fish. Sushi fish is not raw fish. its chemically treated fish. 

If you say that freezing makes fish "non raw", then give whatever name you want. 

My intention is for using healthy food, and Sushi is a healthy food while it has not been cooked. 

 

Quote

Because safety of my food is way more important than nutritional value of my food.

It is your personal choice. It would be a mistake to impose it upon the others. 

All people are free to read and think and experience and adopt that which suits them best. 

Your blame upon raw food is exaggerated. With pre cautions, the raw food is allowed in US/Europe. 

 

Quote

Every culture has a tiny % of people living up to 100+ years. Inuits are no special in this way and its a proven fact that Inuit life expectancy has massively increased due to modern medicine and modern food, while their life-expectancy in adulthood was far lower than their tribal counterparts elsewhere, who ate cooked food. 

It was about dying due to "illness" or dying about the natural disasters. 

Inuit short life expectancy was not due to the diseases, but due to absolute absence of any medication, even in form of herbs and then natural disasters. 

Old Inuit people living up to 105 years of age is a proof that they were as healthy (if not more) than any other culture. 

 

Quote

Everyone in India eats 100% cooked meat diet. Every single person. Last Indians are not dying within 5 years of eating cooked meat.

The question was of eating 100% cooked meat diet (as Inuit does) without any green salads and herbs and onions, cucumber, tomatoes, fruits, wheat, rice etc. 

If some one uses only 100% cooked meat diet, then he is going to die within months, and could never achieve 105 years of age. 

 

Quote

Your own link says that the loss of omega-3 acids were minimal in cooked tuna and only present in fried tuna. Ie, no surprise that oils break down in presence of other oil sources (the frying oil) but cooked normally, remains unaffected.

It didn't say "minimal". But it said "minimum" as compared to frying and dosing. Please read it again. 

Quote

Doctors know more about nutrition and food than you do. A few youtube video clicks, self-medicating and a sky-high ego that thinks your 100 hours of dithering on the internet can override 20,000 hours of professional study & experience, doesn't make it so.

Doctors are not All-Knower gods. 

It is up to every individual to determine what suits him best. There is no alternative to the personal experience. 

 

You talk about placebo effect upon me, while I request you to see if you yourself not suffering from the placebo effect. There is 10000 times more propaganda against the raw food, and here comes the real placebo effect. But despite this 10000 times more propaganda, still the numbers of raw milk drinkers, raw sushi eaters and raw meat eaters is increasing many folds. Why? While they personal experience the health benefits, after which even this 10000 times more propaganda is not going to change their opinion. 

[Alam_dar]

@Under_Score Thank you brother.

Let me make one last thing clear, and then I stop. 

 

Above the links of 2 Scientific Studies were presented. First one from me where Scientific Study claiming Huge Medical benefits of raw milk over the pasteurized milk. While 2nd one from Mulogonto which was claiming there is no difference between raw and pasteurized milk. 

 

So question is, why these "opposite" claims by the Scientific Studies? 

 

Answer is this that the first scientific paper was studying the "effects" of raw milk  and pasteurized milk on the "Human Beings". 

While the second scientific paper was studying the chemical difference between raw milk and pasteurized milk and no Human body study was involved. 

 

My criticism upon the 2nd study is this that Science has not yet developed to the stage of All-Knowing god. There are many micro nutrients which science still not able to recognise. Also it is not possible to say that scienctists are 100% able to see ALL the difference due to heating in proteins and fats. 

 

But the effects on human body don't lie. Let us once again see the huge differences how human body reacts to raw milk:

 

https://www.seleneriverpress.com/historical/abstracts-on-the-effect-of-pasteurization-on-the-nutritional-value-of-milk/

 

This is what I say the "personal experiences" which have also been testified by the scientific studies. 

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I wonder how you are unable to still grab it that it is not a placebo effect while "SCIENCE" has itself proved that raw milk has much more healthy qualities than the pasteurized milk. 

 

https://www.seleneriverpress.com/historical/abstracts-on-the-effect-of-pasteurization-on-the-nutritional-value-of-milk/

 

...In short, pasteurizing milk destroys its nutritive value, as this collection of research abstracts from the 1930s shows. Whereas the studies report raw milk to promote growth, immunity, and excellent health in general, pasteurized milk was shown to do almost the complete opposite, inviting vitamin deficiency and disease in people who drink it, particularly infants. Even its calcium supply was shown to be highly unusable, making “scalded milk” one of the great impostors of modern food manufacturing.

 

Again, that is not science. its propaganda.

I have already presented the scientific paper in question, replete with the sources, citation and data and even highlighted the fact for you that raw milk has ZERO health benefits over pasteurized milk. 

 

I have also presented the study that CLEARLY shows that pasteurized milk eliminates tuberculosis and other dangerous bacterias from the milk. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

After this scientific study, your claim of 50% placebo effect has been totally come to an end. Please mark it, it is not a placebo effect, but the reality. 

 

You have no idea what placebo effect really is. Which is why you are making innane claims you do not understand.

You, a single subject saying your uncontrolled experience ( uncontrolled in the scientific sense) is not placebo effect but 'reality' is nothing more than ignorant ego-tistic nonsense. 

Remember one thing- you are not an expert on nutrition or medicine and nutritionists and doctors are near unanimous that raw meat & milk are dangerous for us. 

So you lose. Simple.

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Moreover, you could see that difference in health benefits are "HUGE" and not "minimal" as claimed. 

I can see no such thing because you have not presented a single scientific study like I have. You have presented propaganda. thats it.

 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I wonder if you have read this report completely?

You are blaming me for cherry picking, but this same scientific paper is mentioning the Q-fever and other diseases due to the presence of C.burnetti, associated with the ill cattle as it could not live outside the host body of ill cattle and those human are mostly endangered from it who have "compromised immune system" i.e. weak people. 

//

Again, nonsense. Cattle are not ill because they carry such bacteria. Bacteria are found often in natural symbiotic state with various animals. We have bacterias in us that are benign and even useful to us (called symbiosis), that can be deadly to other animals. 

Same appllies to bacteria in cattle, pig, goats etc. 

There is nothing ill about a cattle carrying tb bacteria, as it is in symbiosis in the cattle.

Just like pigs are in symbiosis with rubella. 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221549/

 

Q fever, which was first described in the mid-1930s, is a rickettsial disease characterized by chills, fever, weakness, and headache, with endocarditis as a possible complication in immunocompromised patients. C. burnetti is an obligate intracellular parasite that cannot multiply outside of living host cells ... Experiments to ascertain the thermal destruction of C. burnetti are technically challenging because the presence of this organism in a heat-treated milk sample can only be measured indirectly by assessing the presence and concentration of antibodies in a host animal that has been inoculated with a sample of the milk ...  The objectives of this study were to determine the maximum number of C. burnetti that might be found in the milk of an infected cow.

//

Infected in this sense means host cattle, as used in the previous statement.

Ofcourse dangerous food will be even more dangerous to immuno-compromised people. 
Thank you for proving my point that raw milk & raw meat are most dangerous to weak people because the product itself is unsafe.

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Therefore, Q-fever due to C.burnetti is basically an issue of sanitation. Therefore it is important to use milk of healthy cows which are 100% grass fed. Not only this reduces the dangers of Q-fever, but also includes additional benefit of having lot of omega 3 in grass fed milk as compared to the grain fed milk. 

 

Again, total nonsense. Show me where in the article it says its an issue of sanitization. Nowhere does it mention so and that is your mistaken nonsense beleif. 

These dangeros bacteria occur naturally in ALL bovine species. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

People also raise question if C.burnetti is unable to live without the host animal, how then it still remain alive in raw milk? 

Continue exposing your ignorance.
The article says C.Burnetti does not multiply outside of the host cattle. That does not mean it doesn't live. It simply means its in a low activity life cycle devoid of reproduction - which upon entering a new host body (us after eating unsafe raw milk) begin to multiply.

Had you passed high school biology, you'd easily have known this basic fact about bacterial growth & transmission. 

Strange that such an ignorant person like you, in basic biology, can have such strong convictions and make nonsense up on the spot. I guess you are victim to brainwashing by this food-fad group.You know how it works, since you rail on muslims for being brainwashed like you are with this nonsense.

 

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Here you could read in details that raw milk is wrongfully accused of Q-Fever (perhaps on the behalf of strong commercial dairy industry which does not want to improve the sanitation and other health and feed related issues of the cattle). 

 

Oh so inorder to protect your beleif system, you now cook up consipiracy nonsnse. 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

http://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ResponsetoMarlerListofStudies.pdf

Not a scientific piece. As i said, i have no time for propaganda nonsense from illiterate people. Scientific papers only. You have failed to understand or refute the scientific paper i presented that clearly state there is ZERO BENEFIT TO RAW MILK NUTRITIONALLY TO PASTUERIZED MILK AND RAW MILK IS MORE DANGEROUS.

 

A scientific paper stating that cannot be overriden by random website that do not present citation, data or research. 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

And I want to state again and again that dangers from raw milk are over exaggerated. Today we know the reasons and thus able to take the precautions and thus consume the very healthy food safely. 

You can state what you like. Its your religion, clearly. Atleast you approach it like one: you are ill-qualified yourself in the field, refuse to consider expert citation & scientific paper and stick to your belief system.

The only valid precaution towards consuming milk healthily, is via pasteurization. End of story. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

For example, take these steps:

 

(1) Make sure the cattle are absolutely healthy and are 100% grass fed.

Nonsense. Show me a single scientific paper that claims 100% healthy cattle do not pass on these bacteria into the milk. 

Hey genius, pasteurization process was invented BEFORE industrial farming of cattle. Ie, back when cattle were 100% grass fed. And STILL people died from eating raw milk due to these bacterias present in it. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

(2) Make sure all other sanitary issues. Make sure milk is immediately cooled down under +4 degree Celsius which keeps that numbers of bacteria in check and don't let them increase. It is same what same as drinking mother milk which is also not pasteurized if infant takes it directly from mother without and delay. But even mother milk has to be put in the fridge or even pasteurized if there is delay in feeding while then numbers of bacteria grow with high temperature. 

Nonsense. The reason we don't need to pasteurize mother's milk is because humans have the SAME SYMBIOTIC BACTERIA. So it doesnt affect us.

Keep exposing your total ignorance on HOW these bacterias end up in the milk or meat. Not because of 'unhygenic process' - like the duffers in the raw-meat fad like to claim. But because these bacterias are natural to these animals, live in symbiosis with them and dangerous to certain animals- we happen to be one of those animals. 

This is basic biology. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

(3) If you have compromised immune system, then avoid raw milk. 

If it aint good for compromised immune system people, but pasteurized milk is, then it means pasteurized milk is safer for consumption. Pretty straightforward logic. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

(4) Start with only 1-2 spoons full of raw milk. If no ill effects are seen, then gradually increase the amount. 

Even people with compromised immune systems could also follow this step to gradually increased their tolerance for the raw milk. 

Rather not, because expert evidence suggests its less safe method of consumption.

 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I don't know about the sanitation and other issues in Thailand. But after reading, it seems that:

 

(1) This issue of tape worm is limited only to some fresh water fish, while sea fish is totally safe for consumption (link)

Again, you are assuming. Show us where it says its only limited to fresh-water fish. 

Do you even know if this fish is a salmon type fish that lives in ocean but migrates into the rivers to hatch eggs ?

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

(2) And among fresh water fish too, this worm is only found in the area of Thailand and neighbouring countries (link). 

Or it is being noticed there because that part of Thailand is one of the few places left that does not practice safe fish eating practice of cooking the fish.

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

(3) It takes 50 years to the infection to become fatal. It is enough time to cure it with medicine. But people in Thailand are reinfected with the worm again and again. 

Show us where it says it takes 50 years for the infection to become fatal. 

Stop inventing lies to support your religion of raw meat BS. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

(4) Despite eating raw fish whole of their life,  still 20% of Thai population does not have the worms. 

So ? any unsafe practice has a small % of people who remain unaffected. Its an elitist and dangerous argument to say that since its safe for a tiny subset but dangerous for most, lets follow it.

I hope you know there are people who are partners to HIV+ people, have unprotected sex and have not been infected, either. Very few, but they exist. 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

(5) Thai people are not freezing their fish. Freezing will kill all the parasites even in the fresh water fish and make it safe for consumption. 

Or we can follow the safer practice of cooking the fish. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Therefore, eating Sushi in Europe/America is totally safe (even if the fresh water fish is used). And regulations say that Sushi fish has to be pre frozen. 

More proof that cooking is a safer way to eat fish than raw fish. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

 

Its not a propaganda, but scientific study:

https://www.seleneriverpress.com/historical/abstracts-on-the-effect-of-pasteurization-on-the-nutritional-value-of-milk/

This is not a scientific study. I presented a scientific paper. Citation, data, reference. Hosted by a science mirror site.Not some random nonsense from the web. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Medical authority sources have been presented above. Moreover, for a very detailed response, read it here:

 

http://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ResponsetoMarlerListofStudies.pdf

Again,not scientific study but propaganda. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

My intention is for using healthy food, and Sushi is a healthy food while it has not been cooked. 

Your intention is to worship your false religion of raw foods, which is more dangerous to consume, because you stupidly think that slightly better nutritional content in SOME of those foods (not milk for eg) is worth the risk. 
A senseless, religious position. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

It is your personal choice. It would be a mistake to impose it upon the others. 

All people are free to read and think and experience and adopt that which suits them best. 

Your blame upon raw food is exaggerated. With pre cautions, the raw food is allowed in US/Europe. 

There is nothing wrong in imposing safety standards. Its called being part of the society. FDA exists for a reason. People are not free to start unsafe practices, because those same people are exposing their children to the same unsafe practices. 

Your kids should not suffer for your ignorance of expert opinion on matters you are not an expert in. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

It was about dying due to "illness" or dying about the natural disasters. 

Inuit short life expectancy was not due to the diseases, but due to absolute absence of any medication, even in form of herbs and then natural disasters. 

Old Inuit people living up to 105 years of age is a proof that they were as healthy (if not more) than any other culture. 

No, because the extremes do not define the health of a population. If your population has 0.001% people who make it to 100 and I have half that number, but 30% of my people make it to 75 and only 5% of yours do, mine is a healthier population with better life-expectancy. 
Its called better math. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

The question was of eating 100% cooked meat diet (as Inuit does) without any green salads and herbs and onions, cucumber, tomatoes, fruits, wheat, rice etc. 

There is no evidence of such a diet being beneficial and plenty of evidence that such a diet is harmful for us.

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

If some one uses only 100% cooked meat diet, then he is going to die within months, and could never achieve 105 years of age. 

Show us evidence of this claim. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Doctors are not All-Knower gods. 

It is up to every individual to determine what suits him best. There is no alternative to the personal experience. 

Doctors know more than you do on their subject and their subject is how to keep humans healthy.

Keep your egotistic ignorance out of common-space. You are not an expert. You do not know even basic biology. You make up nonsense about healthy grain-fed cows = no more symbiotic bacteria in their milk. 

The alternative to random, ignorant personal experience, is sheer weight of scientific research and data. 

Just like i will take a pilot's opinion on flying a plane over yours, so too i will take doctors opinion on safe and unsafe health practices over these fad-food fanatics who are not qualified. 

 

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

@Under_Score Thank you brother.

Let me make one last thing clear, and then I stop. 

 

Above the links of 2 Scientific Studies were presented. First one from me where Scientific Study claiming Huge Medical benefits of raw milk over the pasteurized milk. While 2nd one from Mulogonto which was claiming there is no difference between raw and pasteurized milk. 

 

So question is, why these "opposite" claims by the Scientific Studies? 

 

Yours is not a scientific paper. Mine is. Scientific paper include citation, data, tabulation and is checked by scientific sources. Yours is a random website. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Answer is this that the first scientific paper was studying the "effects" of raw milk  and pasteurized milk on the "Human Beings". 

While the second scientific paper was studying the chemical difference between raw milk and pasteurized milk and no Human body study was involved. 

Again, total nonsense twisting of the study. One does not need human body study to conclude if X is safer than Y and what is the nutritional value of X compared to Y. Its called chemistry. Or more precisely, 'food science'. 

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

My criticism upon the 2nd study is this that Science has not yet developed to the stage of All-Knowing god. There are many micro nutrients which science still not able to recognise. Also it is not possible to say that scienctists are 100% able to see ALL the difference due to heating in proteins and fats. 

Your criticism is irrelevant. You are not a scientist. Your criticism comes from a religious position, something you are familiar yourself with from arguing with religious muslims : ill-qualified people knee-jerk defend their religion. Like you are doing here. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

But the effects on human body don't lie. Let us once again see the huge differences how human body reacts to raw milk:

The effects on human body does not lie. The fact that people die from consuming raw milk and meat and it is not recommended for infirm people, is raw, empirical proof that raw meat & milk is less safe than cooked meat and pasteurized milk. 

 

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

https://www.seleneriverpress.com/historical/abstracts-on-the-effect-of-pasteurization-on-the-nutritional-value-of-milk/

 

This is what I say the "personal experiences" which have also been testified by the scientific studies. 

Personal experience without control group study is nothing more than egotistic nonsense and failure to recognize placebo effect.

 

Quote

You talk about placebo effect upon me, while I request you to see if you yourself not suffering from the placebo effect. There is 10000 times more propaganda against the raw food, and here comes the real placebo effect. But despite this 10000 times more propaganda, still the numbers of raw milk drinkers, raw sushi eaters and raw meat eaters is increasing many folds. Why? While they personal experience the health benefits, after which even this 10000 times more propaganda is not going to change their opinion. 

Found a new word, have you ? Now go educate yourself what placebo effect is, instead of making up nonsense.

I cannot suffer from placebo effect if i can only accept data-normalized studies. 

The reason the # of raw-meat eaters and raw milk drinkers is increasing, is due to the internet. Because people like you, think that a little ignorant internet searches, listening to charlatans prattle, etc. is superior to YEARS of education, expert training and professional experience. 

The same type of foolish idiots who seek to override doctors in health advice. Because egotistic fools like yourself love to feel important and different. Ie, you guys are like the flat-earthers. Denying science, coming up with nonsense, just to be different. 

 

And if scientific fact cannot change your opinion, then it just shows, you just are following your new religion of food-fads. 

 

PS: Use your brain for a change. Nobody wins via pasteurization of the milk. Milk suppliers have no bloody reason to add an extra step towards heating milk - creates extra work for them for no benefit.  The fact that it is overwhelmingly recommended by experts in nutrition and medicine, with opposition comming from quacks like yourself, shows us that your position is nothing more than a fad.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

This is a scientific paper :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221549/

Why ? It has all the citations, table of data, actual data analysis and is peer-reviewed.. 

 

This is a propaganda piece 'fake news' type article:

https://www.seleneriverpress.com/historical/abstracts-on-the-effect-of-pasteurization-on-the-nutritional-value-of-milk/

 

Why ?

Because it provides no data actual data analysis and is not peer reviewed. Just propaganda and random quotations.