Scientific Study: Pasteurised milk to be blamed for the rise in allergies

[Alam_dar]

In another thread, respected member @Singh bling provided a link to the study which mentioned that Sikhs are one of the most healthy people in our region and their traditional diet consisted of "raw milk" and "raw carrots/cabbage" and "roti" (link). 

Unfortunately, it seems the younger generation of Sikhs is not following the traditional diet and thus they are becoming as fragile as other people in the region. 

 

Now I searched further, and got this information about the negative effects of pasteurized milk. 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3503525/Now-s-MOO-t-point-pasteurised-milk-blame-rise-allergies.html

 

... Growing body of evidence now suggests that pasteurisation may be robbing us of vital protection against serious allergies, as well as destroying a range of life-enhancing nutrients.

 

While you can legally buy ‘raw’ milk from farmers, fresh milk sold in Britain’s High Streets must, by law, be pasteurised — a technique that involves heating it to 72c (162f) for 25 seconds.

 

This eliminates E.coli and other potentially lethal pathogens such as campylobacter, salmonella and listeria. However, the process seems to also destroy beneficial elements that protect us from a host of ailments, in particular allergies in children and adults.

 

A study of more than 1,100 children by paediatric allergy specialists at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, Germany, found that those who regularly drank unpasteurised farm milk were significantly less likely to develop asthma.

 

The findings of this large-scale, long-term (six-year) study are in line with earlier, smaller studies. But the German study also points to omega 3 fatty acids as the substance in raw milk that may be key to the benefits. Tabea Brick, one of the immunologists who led the research, says that these play a crucial role in enabling the body to create chemicals that reduce harmful inflammation.

Asthma is essentially an inflammatory allergic reaction in the airways of the lungs.

‘Fresh, unprocessed cow’s milk has a higher content of omega 3 than does pasteurised, homogenised [where it’s treated to stop the cream separating] or low-fat milk,’ she says in this month’s edition of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

 

‘This factor partly explains why children who consume the unprocessed product are less likely to develop asthma.’...

 

 

Last November, researchers at London’s Population Health Research Institute reported in the journal PLOS ONE that UK children who drank unpasteurised milk had a significantly lower risk of rhinitis, hay fever and allergic conjunctivitis.

 

In a similar vein, when dermatologist Dr Donna Torley, at Southern General Hospital in Glasgow, examined the results of 24 previous research reviews in 2013, she found that consuming unpasteurised milk plays a significant role in reducing the risk of children developing eczema. The benefits may even be passed on in the womb.

 

Mothers who drink unpasteurised milk are less likely to have children who suffer childhood asthma and other allergies, according to a German study published in the journal Current Opinion in Gastroenterology in 2012...

 

A study by Australian pharmacists, published in the International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition last month, found the sterilisation process can cut levels of vitamin D by up to 20 per cent.

 

And a report in the British Medical Journal in 2014 cited evidence indicating that pasteurisation kills beneficial bacteria that boost the gut’s ability to absorb nutrients. The bacteria also produce vitamin K, which helps blood to clot and bones to grow properly...

 

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Alam_dar

[Muloghonto]

1. Not a scientific study. just a rag newspaper is quoted.

2. Asthma is not an allergy. People who have asthma don't just get asthma during pollen seaon or such, they have asthma when air quality is low and when they do high cardio exercises. 

3. There are hundreds of millions of Indians drinking pasteurized milk and they are not developing asthma or allergies either.

4. The article ITSELF mentions that pasteurized milk is safer.

Do not peddle psuedo-scientific stuff that are harmful to humans, such as consumption of raw meat, unpasteurized milk, anti-vaccine, etc. nonsense.

As i keep saying and you keep running away from it, its better to eat a less nutritious McDonalds burger, that is safe, over the greenest salad in the world covered in TB bacteria.  You wont always get TB either from eating food with TB bacteria in it, but your chances go up significantly.

The same is true for consumption of raw meat, unpasteurized milk, etc - the risk of disease goes up significantly.

 

There is this ridiculously dangerous and false beleif amongst fad-dieticians like you, that if the animals are fed proper,nutritious meals, it will lower the bacterial or contagion content. That is absolute, 100% rubbish. All animals have bacteria and parasites in symbiosis with itself and therefore, are going to be in the animal no-matter what.

The Pox category of diseases - from which smallpox, chickenpox, etc. comes, are naturally found in bovines. All bovines. Its called cow-pox when the bovines get it and for them it is a mild disease. ( we can also contract cow-pox). 

Same is true for Whooping cough in pigs, etc. 

Feeding these animals their optimal diet will make a difference to toxins in their body, quality of their meats, etc. but will do nothing to lower the concentration of these naturally occuring microbes in their bodies. 

The only safe way to eat them, is to cook the meat, to neutralize the risk of contagion. 

SO yes, my cooked meat may be less nutritious than your raw meat. But just like I'd rather eat a McDonald's burger than a salad with ebola virus on it, i'd rather eat cooked meat than raw meat. 

 

[rkt.india]

i have always found most Sikhs as big fat people and Sikhs have a significant presence in our area.

[Stradlater]

22 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

i have always found most Sikhs as big fat people and Sikhs have a significant presence in our area.

Rudrapur?

[Alam_dar]

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Not a scientific study. just a rag newspaper is quoted.

Newspaper is not a scientific study, but newspaper is citing the actual large scale scientific study which was done by the University in Germany.

 

Quote

2. Asthma is not an allergy. People who have asthma don't just get asthma during pollen seaon or such, they have asthma when air quality is low and when they do high cardio exercises. 

The same substances that trigger your hay fever symptoms, such as pollen, dust mites and pet dander, may also cause asthma signs and symptoms. In some people, skin or food allergies can cause asthma symptoms. This is called allergic asthma or allergy-induced asthma.

Allergies and asthma: Double trouble - Mayo Clinic

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/asthma/.../allergies...asthma/art-2004745...

 

Moreover, it is not only Asthma, but pasteurized milk is also causing rhinitis, hay fever and allergic conjunctivitis as has been mentioned in the article. 

  

Quote

3. There are hundreds of millions of Indians drinking pasteurized milk and they are not developing asthma or allergies either.

But what about those children who are indeed suffering from it?

India Has 10% of World's Asthma Patients: Survey - News18

World Asthma Day: Survey finds 35% kids from Indian metros have ...

Moreover, raw milk has omega 3, which helps not only against Asthma and allergies, but also against any kind of harmful inflammation. 

 

Here another scientific study, direct from the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology:

ω-3 fatty acids contribute to the asthma-protective effect of unprocessed cow's milk

Continuous farm milk consumption in childhood protects against asthma at school age partially by means of higher intake of ω-3 polyunsaturated FAs, which are precursors of anti-inflammatory mediators.

Quote

4. The article ITSELF mentions that pasteurized milk is safer.

Yes. 

But please understand, I have been constantly advising people that one should try to find out a raw milk source which covers these conditions:

(1) High standards of Sanitization 

(2) When possible, then organic (free of hormones) and 100% grass fed (free of grain diet) milk.

 

In this same article, it has been written that FSA also allowed the sale of raw milk in the licensed farms and markets which means FSA thinks raw milk safe for consumption which fulfils some conditions. This is exactly my point where I am not advocating "only raw milk", but advocating "raw milk with conditions". 

 

Quote

Do not peddle psuedo-scientific stuff that are harmful to humans, such as consumption of raw meat, unpasteurized milk, anti-vaccine, etc. nonsense.

As i keep saying and you keep running away from it, its better to eat a less nutritious McDonalds burger, that is safe, over the greenest salad in the world covered in TB bacteria.  You wont always get TB either from eating food with TB bacteria in it, but your chances go up significantly.

The same is true for consumption of raw meat, unpasteurized milk, etc - the risk of disease goes up significantly.

There are children who are suffering badly due to the allergies, and their parents even don't know the reason. They keep on giving them the pasteurized milk. 

It is a good feeling if one is able to help the other human beings. I identified problems of mucus and allegies in my nieces and a friends son. My nieces are in Pakistan, they got no chance of good quality raw milk, but my friend in the west got hands to a good source raw milk and it helped his son to get rid of his problems. 

My nieces also not getting milk any more, but getting fresh vegetable juices and it also helped them. 

 

When not raw milk, still at the minimum, parents should become aware of this issue that their children may have been getting the allergies due to the consumption of pasteurized milk, so that they could cut it off and thus help their children. 

 

Quote

There is this ridiculously dangerous and false beleif amongst fad-dieticians like you, that if the animals are fed proper,nutritious meals, it will lower the bacterial or contagion content. That is absolute, 100% rubbish. All animals have bacteria and parasites in symbiosis with itself and therefore, are going to be in the animal no-matter what.

It is not only good quality feed, but also high standards of sanitization. 

If proper care is taken in the light of modern science, then raw food is safe to consume. 

Holland, Norway, Sweden, Germany ... all allow sale of raw milk with sanitization conditions and raw fish dishes with the conditions of freezing them before. No cases have been registered since decades about any problem with such frozen raw fish in these countries. 

 

Quote

The Pox category of diseases - from which smallpox, chickenpox, etc. comes, are naturally found in bovines. All bovines. Its called cow-pox when the bovines get it and for them it is a mild disease. ( we can also contract cow-pox). 

Same is true for Whooping cough in pigs, etc. 

Feeding these animals their optimal diet will make a difference to toxins in their body, quality of their meats, etc. but will do nothing to lower the concentration of these naturally occuring microbes in their bodies. 

The only safe way to eat them, is to cook the meat, to neutralize the risk of contagion. 

SO yes, my cooked meat may be less nutritious than your raw meat. But just like I'd rather eat a McDonald's burger than a salad with ebola virus on it, i'd rather eat cooked meat than raw meat. 

It is good to be one the safe side as your recommend. No doubt about it.

 

But on the other side, we should not exaggerate the issue with bacteria and make healthy raw food totally forbidden. 

 

I am afraid, sometimes in case of illness, only the healthy food is going to heal them. People who started drinking raw milk, fresh vegetable juices, wild raw green herbs, raw salads, good quality meat, organic vegetables etc. they indeed felt the positive effects. 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Alam_dar

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

i have always found most Sikhs as big fat people and Sikhs have a significant presence in our area.

I am afraid that Sikhs have lost their traditional diet for decades.

 

They are no more drinking raw milk or eating lot of raw carrots and raw cabbage diet. Therefore, it is difficult to judge them today for the diet that their forefathers ate. 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Alam_dar

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Newspaper is not a scientific study, but newspaper is citing the actual large scale scientific study which was done by the University in Germany.

 

The same substances that trigger your hay fever symptoms, such as pollen, dust mites and pet dander, may also cause asthma signs and symptoms. In some people, skin or food allergies can cause asthma symptoms. This is called allergic asthma or allergy-induced asthma.

Allergies and asthma: Double trouble - Mayo Clinic

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/asthma/.../allergies...asthma/art-2004745...

 

Moreover, it is not only Asthma, but pasteurized milk is also causing rhinitis, hay fever and allergic conjunctivitis as has been mentioned in the article. 

  

But what about those children who are indeed suffering from it?

Sure. But the news article you quote, says asthma. I am simply pointing out, that saying it greatly increases chances of asthma is not equal to it creating allergies, if its clinical asthma. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

India Has 10% of World's Asthma Patients: Survey - News18

World Asthma Day: Survey finds 35% kids from Indian metros have ...

Moreover, raw milk has omega 3, which helps not only against Asthma and allergies, but also against any kind of harmful inflammation. 

And raw milk is also more dangerous. Why do you continue to ignore that part ? 

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Here another scientific study, direct from the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology:

ω-3 fatty acids contribute to the asthma-protective effect of unprocessed cow's milk

Continuous farm milk consumption in childhood protects against asthma at school age partially by means of higher intake of ω-3 polyunsaturated FAs, which are precursors of anti-inflammatory mediators.

Yes. 

But please understand, I have been constantly advising people that one should try to find out a raw milk source which covers these conditions:

(1) High standards of Sanitization 

(2) When possible, then organic (free of hormones) and 100% grass fed (free of grain diet) milk.

High standards of sanitation or hormone free does NOT take care of pathogens in the raw animal product. 
How many times do i have to repeat that, before you stop listening to BS propaganda and realize where several infectious and dangerous diseases come from - Animals themselves !!!

 

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

In this same article, it has been written that FSA also allowed the sale of raw milk in the licensed farms and markets which means FSA thinks raw milk safe for consumption which fulfils some conditions. This is exactly my point where I am not advocating "only raw milk", but advocating "raw milk with conditions". 

Show me where FSA says raw, un-irradiated/un-pasteurized milk, is legal to sell, directly from the udder to your mouth. 

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

There are children who are suffering badly due to the allergies, and their parents even don't know the reason. They keep on giving them the pasteurized milk. 

 

Sure, stop giving them pasteurized milk then. But these children should not consume raw milk with no treatment afforded to it. Doing so, is quite literally getting back to pre Edward Jenner era and kids/people dropping dead randomly because they ate something and died. 

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

It is a good feeling if one is able to help the other human beings. I identified problems of mucus and allegies in my nieces and a friends son. My nieces are in Pakistan, they got no chance of good quality raw milk, but my friend in the west got hands to a good source raw milk and it helped his son to get rid of his problems. 

My nieces also not getting milk any more, but getting fresh vegetable juices and it also helped them. 

 

When not raw milk, still at the minimum, parents should become aware of this issue that their children may have been getting the allergies due to the consumption of pasteurized milk, so that they could cut it off and thus help their children. 

The easier option, would be to stop drinking milk.

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

It is not only good quality feed, but also high standards of sanitization. 

If proper care is taken in the light of modern science, then raw food is safe to consume. 

BS. Utter, total BS. eat raw pork = get tape-worms. Raw meat, is simply not safe. History proves that. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Holland, Norway, Sweden, Germany ... all allow sale of raw milk with sanitization conditions and raw fish dishes with the conditions of freezing them before. No cases have been registered since decades about any problem with such frozen raw fish in these countries. 

They are not raw. They are irradiated/treated themselves. No matter how clean you keep your cow, putting milk directly from its udders to your mouth is inviting fatal diseaess to zoonotically jump species. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

 

It is good to be one the safe side as your recommend. No doubt about it.

 

But on the other side, we should not exaggerate the issue with bacteria and make healthy raw food totally forbidden. 

Law of large numbers. If 7 billion people start to eat raw foods, tens of thousands will die more than they do, due to microbial transfer issues. There will be outbreaks of deadly diseases, as intact bateria & viral forms make zoonotic jumps. 

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

I am afraid, sometimes in case of illness, only the healthy food is going to heal them. People who started drinking raw milk, fresh vegetable juices, wild raw green herbs, raw salads, good quality meat, organic vegetables etc. they indeed felt the positive effects. 

 

Sure. But they are also taking a risk of getting deathly ill from bacteria and virus that are harmful to us but natural to those animal species. 

 

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

High standards of sanitation or hormone free does NOT take care of pathogens in the raw animal product. 

Human body is able to take care of pathogens, as humans are drinking raw milk since ages. 

 

There is fabulous a new thing we all have now called “Refrigeration”!

 

The simple fact is, ALL fresh foods (milk, meat, poultry, fish) contain a certain amount of harmful pathogens. The two things that keep these pathogens in check (and from killing us) are proper food handling and refrigeration. Keeping these foods below 40 degrees F (35F optimum) keeps the pathogens from multiplying to the extent that our bodies can not fight them off naturally.

And remember this – Pasteurization was invented long before the advent of refrigeration. So yes, in its time, is was CRITICAL that dairy products be pasteurized! Today, milk is processed cold, shipped cold, stored cold, and served cold. The minute amount pathogens (E coli or otherwise) have no chance to reproduce unless you are being completely careless about your handling/sanitation practices…..in which case your chicken or fish has just as much chance of causing harm as does your milk, pasteurized or not.

 

Quote

How many times do i have to repeat that, before you stop listening to BS propaganda and realize where several infectious and dangerous diseases come from - Animals themselves !!!

I respectfully disagree.

It is not a BS propaganda, but established scientific facts that sanitization, refrigeration, freezing make food safe to consume. And also it is now also an  established scientific fact that people (especially children) are suffering due to the consumption of pasteurized milk. 

The sufferers have absolutely no other choice other than to switch to clean and healthy raw milk, or to stop drinking milk al ltogether. 

 

Quote

Show me where FSA says raw, un-irradiated/un-pasteurized milk, is legal to sell, directly from the udder to your mouth. 

This was present in the same article:

//

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3503525/Now-s-MOO-t-point-pasteurised-milk-blame-rise-allergies.html

And last year an in-depth safety review by the FSA ruled that while raw milk should continue to be sold, this could only be direct to consumers on specifically licensed farms, in farm shops and at farmers’ markets. The FSA believes this is the best way to maintain safe hygiene standards.

//

 

Quote

Sure, stop giving them pasteurized milk then. But these children should not consume raw milk with no treatment afforded to it. Doing so, is quite literally getting back to pre Edward Jenner era and kids/people dropping dead randomly because they ate something and died. 

The new treatment is sanitization and refrigeration and scientifically proven to be effective. 

 

Quote

The easier option, would be to stop drinking milk.

I beg to differ. 

None of our cooked food offer us omega 3 today, which is useful in every kind of harmful inflammation and has lot of other health benefits. 

Omega 3 is heat sensitive. 

And vegetables and lentils have absolutely no omega 3. 

 

Quote

They are not raw. They are irradiated/treated themselves.

No, it is not irradiated/treated, but 100% raw milk with all the sanitization and refrigeration conditions fulfilled.

It is known as "Vorzugsmilch" in germany and  considered fully safe and legally allowed by the government to be sold in the markets. 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorzugsmilch

 

Conclusion:

We have science and then the governments who are telling us the sanitization and refrigeration making raw milk safe, but on the other hand we have your opinion that despite sanitization and refrigeration raw milk is dangerous. Whom should we believe in this case?

 

 

PS:

 

Allergies caused by pasteurized milk are "hereditary". 

What does that mean for the FUTURE?

 

This means when the people with allergies today are going to make babies in future, then all these babies are going to get this illness. It will become a nightmare. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Alam_dar

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Human body is able to take care of pathogens, as humans are drinking raw milk since ages. 

 

False. Before pasteurization, the death rate & disease rate was significantly higher. 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

There is fabulous a new thing we all have now called “Refrigeration”!

 

The simple fact is, ALL fresh foods (milk, meat, poultry, fish) contain a certain amount of harmful pathogens. The two things that keep these pathogens in check (and from killing us) are proper food handling and refrigeration. Keeping these foods below 40 degrees F (35F optimum) keeps the pathogens from multiplying to the extent that our bodies can not fight them off naturally.

And remember this – Pasteurization was invented long before the advent of refrigeration. So yes, in its time, is was CRITICAL that dairy products be pasteurized! Today, milk is processed cold, shipped cold, stored cold, and served cold. The minute amount pathogens (E coli or otherwise) have no chance to reproduce unless you are being completely careless about your handling/sanitation practices…..in which case your chicken or fish has just as much chance of causing harm as does your milk, pasteurized or not.

nonsense. This does not address zoonotic diseases at all. 

 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I respectfully disagree.

It is not a BS propaganda, but established scientific facts that sanitization, refrigeration, freezing make food safe to consume. And also it is now also an  established scientific fact that people (especially children) are suffering due to the consumption of pasteurized milk. 

The sufferers have absolutely no other choice other than to switch to clean and healthy raw milk, or to stop drinking milk al ltogether. 

Rather stop drinking milk, than drink milk that can potentially kill you. 

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

This was present in the same article:

//

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3503525/Now-s-MOO-t-point-pasteurised-milk-blame-rise-allergies.html

And last year an in-depth safety review by the FSA ruled that while raw milk should continue to be sold, this could only be direct to consumers on specifically licensed farms, in farm shops and at farmers’ markets. The FSA believes this is the best way to maintain safe hygiene standards.

//

 

The new treatment is sanitization and refrigeration and scientifically proven to be effective. 

 

I beg to differ. 

None of our cooked food offer us omega 3 today, which is useful in every kind of harmful inflammation and has lot of other health benefits. 

Omega 3 is heat sensitive. 

And vegetables and lentils have absolutely no omega 3. 

none of our ancestors ate raw meat or fish either, so they did not recieve omega-3. 

 

 

[Alam_dar]

17 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Rather stop drinking milk, than drink milk that can potentially kill you. 

Milk is too important to be removed from the diet of millions of people.  There is no alternative to it. There are no omega-3 in the vegetables or fruits or lentils. And if meat is cooked then omega-3 is destroyed as it is heat sensitive. 

 

And high standard raw milk could indeed help in fight against any kind of harmful inflammation due to it's omega 3. 

 

For the sake of humanity, it is time to increase the standard of the diet and more of organic, hormones free diet should be made available to the people. We give way too much money away on the Fast Food and restaurants. Instead, we have to use the resources wisely and elevate the standard of the food itself. 

 

I don't agree with you that sanitized, refrigerated high standard milk could potentially kill you, otherwise Western governments would not have allowed their sale. 

17 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

none of our ancestors ate raw meat or fish either, so they did not recieve omega-3. 

In Europe, people were drinking raw milk till pasteurization was introduced in 19th century. Therefore, they were getting their omega-3 from the raw milk, raw milk cheese (which is still popular in Europe)

 

I don't know about India exactly. At least the Sikh community was drinking the raw milk. May be other India too drank raw milk in the earlier centuries, but I have not seen any proof for this  up till now. 

 

Only one thing is sure i.e. cooked diet is not going to provide you with omega-3

[Muloghonto]

23 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Milk is too important to be removed from the diet of millions of people.  There is no alternative to it. There are no omega-3 in the vegetables or fruits or lentils. And if meat is cooked then omega-3 is destroyed as it is heat sensitive. 

 

Fish has omega-3 and it remains even via cooking (eg: cooked salmon). 

Milk is *not* essential to human diet actually. 

23 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

And high standard raw milk could indeed help in fight against any kind of harmful inflammation due to it's omega 3. 

High standard raw milk is still less safe to consume than pasteurized milk. You people try to hide behind the fad of a few hundred thousand max, out of 7 billion and counting. Your methods would lead to a noticable increase in disease and death to humanity. Ergo, to be discouraged. Simple. 

 

23 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

For the sake of humanity, it is time to increase the standard of the diet and more of organic, hormones free diet should be made available to the people. We give way too much money away on the Fast Food and restaurants. Instead, we have to use the resources wisely and elevate the standard of the food itself. 

For the sake of humanity, stop pushing your false religious belief in raw foods, particularly raw meat and animal products. 

This is not an argument in favor of fast food or any junk food either. 

 

23 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I don't agree with you that sanitized, refrigerated high standard milk could potentially kill you, otherwise Western governments would not have allowed their sale. 

There are plenty of western governments who also do not sanction it. And those that sanction it, are consumed by a tiny minority.

You don't have to agree, but science is science. It is a fact that raw milk is less safe than pasteurized milk. I am from a western nation and we do not allow raw milk precisely because our medical experts are unanimous that raw milk is dangerous. 

23 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

In Europe, people were drinking raw milk till pasteurization was introduced in 19th century. Therefore, they were getting their omega-3 from the raw milk, raw milk cheese (which is still popular in Europe)

And till 19th century a lot more europeans were dying from food borne illnesses too. 

 

23 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I don't know about India exactly. At least the Sikh community was drinking the raw milk. May be other India too drank raw milk in the earlier centuries, but I have not seen any proof for this  up till now. 

Very few people in India drink raw milk. 

 

23 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Only one thing is sure i.e. cooked diet is not going to provide you with omega-3

False. Cooked fish can still contain plenty of omega-3. More so than in your raw milk. 

 

You are dodging the simple science that i have presented- via various research papers that conclusively show, that raw meat is more dangerous to consume. So is raw milk. You saying govts allows it, is not refutation of the science behind it. 

[Alam_dar]

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Fish has omega-3 and it remains even via cooking (eg: cooked salmon). 

(1) I don't think Salmon is local to India (Indian Ocean). 

(2) Farmed Salmon has even much less omega 3 (actually Salmon have to eat wild caught small fishes like anchovies  in order to get omega 3)

(3) Indian fresh water rivers could not produce omega 3 rich fishes as it requires cold water. 

 

(4) In India, fish is maximum fried or cooked in oil (even for gravy). This kills 85% of DHA (i.e. omega 3)

Only way to preserve omega 3 is to bake the fish without any oil, which is still rare in India (while a person eats big portion from baked fish, while little amount of fish with gravy is enough for the whole family)

(5) And even baking increased the bad fats content (i.e. monounsaturated fatty acid) to 38% which is huge. But you are still ok with this poison in human body, while I am not while it hinders the healing. 

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

 

And the most important point, wild ocean fish with omega 3 is not available in such big quantity to feed the Indian population. So how are you going to achieve this task without milk  by using only fish? 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Milk is *not* essential to human diet actually. 

Human are omnivore and capable of adaptability. Therefore, milk is playing major role in human diet today. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

High standard raw milk is still less safe to consume than pasteurized milk. You people try to hide behind the fad of a few hundred thousand max, out of 7 billion and counting. Your methods would lead to a noticable increase in disease and death to humanity. Ergo, to be discouraged. Simple. 

With modern scientific knowledge available, with better sanitization standards, with refrigeration it is not going to bring even 1% of that diseases which has been caused by the pasteurized milk, where 30% of children in Indian cities are suffering from allergies. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

For the sake of humanity, stop pushing your false religious belief in raw foods, particularly raw meat and animal products. 

We are not advocating "Raw Milk/Raw animal products", but we are advocating whole package including modern scientific knowledge, sanitization, refrigeration. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

This is not an argument in favor of fast food or any junk food either. 

Yes, it is an argument while only few high standard raw milk and grass fed products are available and only tiny minority consume it, so that masses should not go for it. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

There are plenty of western governments who also do not sanction it. And those that sanction it, are consumed by a tiny minority.

Initially Germany and US and UK also didn't allow it. But then came the Scientific Proofs, and they were helpless against it and finally they had to allow it. 

Remaining Western government also had no more the science on their side. Sooner or later they are also going to allow it like the 3 advanced nations of Germany, UK, USA. 

And France, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Norway ...  all allowed legal sale of "Raw Milk Cheese" and "Raw milk Butter". They are available in every discounter here now (especially raw milk cheese). 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You don't have to agree, but science is science. It is a fact that raw milk is less safe than pasteurized milk. I am from a western nation and we do not allow raw milk precisely because our medical experts are unanimous that raw milk is dangerous. 

And till 19th century a lot more europeans were dying from food borne illnesses too. 

The times are changing. 

Modern Science is proving the benefits of raw milk over the pasteurized milk. 

Despite so much opposition, still we are winning the war in this modern time. 

Reason is simple that people are hearing, and they are trying it, and finding the health benefits. After such personal experiences, no one is going to hear the opponents any more, and that is why they are loosing. Not only sale of raw cheese, raw butter, raw milk is becoming legal, but also millions of people have started using raw milk/cheese/butter. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Very few people in India drink raw milk. 

The question was not about today, but the question was about the earlier centuries. Did the Indians also drank raw milk as the Sikh community did?

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

False. Cooked fish can still contain plenty of omega-3. More so than in your raw milk. 

It is not a practical solution in India, or even in US/Europe. 

Fishes have already been over-fished in the wild and now there is already a limit to fish them. 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

(1) I don't think Salmon is local to India (Indian Ocean). 

Salmon is just an example. Any oily fish will do. Eelish is an option for India.

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

(2) Farmed Salmon has even much less omega 3 (actually Salmon have to eat wild caught small fishes like anchovies  in order to get omega 3)

Too bad. There is such a thing called sustainability. Farmed salmon is sustainable, wild salmon is not. No point eating something because its marginally healthy, only to make the species go extinct in a few decades. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

(3) Indian fresh water rivers could not produce omega 3 rich fishes as it requires cold water. 

False. All deep sea fish have omega-3 fats, because deep sea is cold, regardless of where it is. Eelish (Hilsa) for example, is just as rich in Omega-3 and they live in deep seas of the Indian ocean. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

(4) In India, fish is maximum fried or cooked in oil (even for gravy). This kills 85% of DHA (i.e. omega 3)

Not always. Bengalis usually lightly fry the fish with skin intact. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Only way to preserve omega 3 is to bake the fish without any oil, which is still rare in India (while a person eats big portion from baked fish, while little amount of fish with gravy is enough for the whole family)

Frying fish does not destroy all omega-3. Covering the fish in olive oil and then cooking it protects the omega-3s. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

(5) And even baking increased the bad fats content (i.e. monounsaturated fatty acid) to 38% which is huge. But you are still ok with this poison in human body, while I am not while it hinders the healing. 

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

Again for the millionth time - the first order of business is to eat in a safe fashion. I keep stating it and you keep running away from it so i will say again : better to eat a McDonald's burger than the freshest salad in the world covered in Ebola. Your raw food option is the latter option - nutritionally better but ALSO more dangerous. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

 

And the most important point, wild ocean fish with omega 3 is not available in such big quantity to feed the Indian population. So how are you going to achieve this task without milk  by using only fish? 

Fish farms. 

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Human are omnivore and capable of adaptability. Therefore, milk is playing major role in human diet today. 

Yet we are the ONLY omnivore that consumes the milk of another animal. It is not required and we did just fine for tens of thousands of years without any milk, since milk only became an option in the last 20,000 years when we started animal husbandry. 

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

With modern scientific knowledge available, with better sanitization standards, with refrigeration it is not going to bring even 1% of that diseases which has been caused by the pasteurized milk, where 30% of children in Indian cities are suffering from allergies. 

The comment '30% of Indians are suffering from allergies' is typical twisting of facts from you - prove to us that all allergies are due to diet and not genetic. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

We are not advocating "Raw Milk/Raw animal products", but we are advocating whole package including modern scientific knowledge, sanitization, refrigeration. 

Does NOT change the fact that zoonotic microbes will make the jump to us via raw meats and is more dangerous. 

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Yes, it is an argument while only few high standard raw milk and grass fed products are available and only tiny minority consume it, so that masses should not go for it. 

 

Saying we should eat safe, cooked food is not equivalent to saying we should eat junk food or fast food. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Initially Germany and US and UK also didn't allow it. But then came the Scientific Proofs, and they were helpless against it and finally they had to allow it. 

Remaining Western government also had no more the science on their side. Sooner or later they are also going to allow it like the 3 advanced nations of Germany, UK, USA. 

And France, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Norway ...  all allowed legal sale of "Raw Milk Cheese" and "Raw milk Butter". They are available in every discounter here now (especially raw milk cheese). 

It still doesn't change the fact that raw milk is more dangerous than pasteurized milk. I know for a fact that from French & German POV,its not about safety of the food but freedom of choice. My country does not believe in pandering to fad-diets as a standard, hence we do not give that consession towards more dangerous foods.

 

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

The times are changing. 

Modern Science is proving the benefits of raw milk over the pasteurized milk. 

Despite so much opposition, still we are winning the war in this modern time. 

Reason is simple that people are hearing, and they are trying it, and finding the health benefits. After such personal experiences, no one is going to hear the opponents any more, and that is why they are loosing. Not only sale of raw cheese, raw butter, raw milk is becoming legal, but also millions of people have started using raw milk/cheese/butter. 

Same was said by the anti-vaxxers. Then a few measles and preventable disease outbreak changed the popular opinion against them. 

You lot pushing an unsafe food, will go the same way- all it takes is one zoonotic disease outbreak and then the nonsense you espouse will be exposed for what it is.

I repeat and i will keep saying - no amount of 'safe techniques and properly fed' animals will result in TB not being present in pork or other diseases that are in natural symbiosis with the said animals. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

 

The question was not about today, but the question was about the earlier centuries. Did the Indians also drank raw milk as the Sikh community did?

Most likely. Which is why they also died more frequently due to food-borne illnesses.

 

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

It is not a practical solution in India, or even in US/Europe. 

Fishes have already been over-fished in the wild and now there is already a limit to fish them. 

Fish farms are a viable option.

 

[Alam_dar]

14 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Too bad. There is such a thing called sustainability. Farmed salmon is sustainable, wild salmon is not. No point eating something because its marginally healthy, only to make the species go extinct in a few decades. 

Don't you know that salmons get their omega-3 by eating small wild fishes and shrimps etc. 

Therefore, farmed Salmons are also given "fishmeal" which is ultimately wild caught small fishes like sardines and anchovies. 

Now tell us how are you going to increase the farmed Salmon production without making oceans empty of wild small fishes? 

 

While milk is produced by the cows eating "Grass" which is in enough quantity to feed billions of people.  

 

Moreover, look at the other poisons in the farmed fish:

 

//

 

Farmed versus wild salmon: Research review

But a 2016 paper in Nature found that over the previous 10 years, the omega-3s in farmed salmon had fallen about 50 percent because farms were switching from feeding their salmon fishmeal (ground up bits of fish) and substituting plant-based sources such as soybeans. What’s more, farmed Atlantic salmon has three timesmore saturated fat (the bad kind of fat) than wild Pacific salmon, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture...

Dioxins
In the mid-2000s, several prominent studies raised concerns about dioxins and other persistent environmental pollutants (POPs) in farmed salmon. Dioxins, says the World Health Organization, “can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and also cause cancer” in humans. Though they can occur naturally, dioxins are mainly industrial byproducts that accumulate in the food chain. Pointing to dioxins, a 2004 study in Science warned that “consumption of farmed Atlantic salmon may pose risks that detract from the beneficial effects of fish consumption,” singling out salmon farmed in Scotland and the Faroe Islands...

“Red dye”
Salmon flesh is naturally red, at least in the wild, because salmon feed on krill and shrimp that contain a compound called astaxanthin (it also turns flamingos “pink”), which helps prevent cancer and aging. But farmed salmon generally don’t receive a natural source of astaxanthin in their diets. Their flesh is, instead, congenitally grey. Enter: the marketing department. Consumers like their salmon pink. So farmers feed their fish a synthesized astaxanthin — sometimes made from corn and sometimes from petrochemicals — to “pigment” the salmon. There are few studies on the long-term effect of synthetic astaxanthin.

Antibiotics
The use of antibiotics in agriculture for decades has provided ample evidence of resistance spreading from food into humans. A similar trend appears to be happening with farmed fish, too: “The recent growth of aquaculture is contributing to the development of the same resistance mechanisms also seen in agricultural production,” said a 2015 meta-analysis published by the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists.

But outrage may have had some effect on the use of antibiotics in aquaculture, suggests this 2013 study of farmed salmon production in British Columbia.

A newer concern, detailed in a September 2017 paper in Environmental Science and Technology, is how antibiotic-resistant genes are making their way from fishmeal into salmon farms and into ocean-borne bacteria that threatens humans.

//

 

 

Quote

Not always. Bengalis usually lightly fry the fish with skin intact. 

Almost always. Europeans also fry their fish lightly, but it is enough heat during frying process to kill the DHA.

Skin plays no role if the inner temperature is rising. 

Actually in presence of skin, people tend to fry more in order to make the skin crispy. 

 

Secondly, what about the rest of India?

 

Quote

Frying fish does not destroy all omega-3. Covering the fish in olive oil and then cooking it protects the omega-3s. 

Yes olive oil has low smoke point, meaning fish will not get too hot. 

But how many Indians could afford the olive oil for frying?

Quote

Again for the millionth time - the first order of business is to eat in a safe fashion. I keep stating it and you keep running away from it so i will say again : better to eat a McDonald's burger than the freshest salad in the world covered in Ebola. Your raw food option is the latter option - nutritionally better but ALSO more dangerous. 

I am afraid problem does not lie with me. 

I have many times replied to this argument. Modern science has given us the knowledge how to make utilize this more healthy option safely. Even the governments have agreed that indeed these healthy foods could be consumed safely and thus allowed the sale of raw milk. While raw cheese and raw butter is sold just like normal pasteurized cheese and butter. 

 

It would be unfortunate if you still keep on blaming whole process of keeping these healthy process unsafe and dangerous. 

Quote

Yet we are the ONLY omnivore that consumes the milk of another animal. It is not required and we did just fine for tens of thousands of years without any milk, since milk only became an option in the last 20,000 years when we started animal husbandry. 

Yes, vegetables also became part of human diet in the last 10000 years. But as I said before, humans are omnivores and raw milk is indeed beneficial to humans and has become a staple food all over the world. 

 

Without milk we will have Chinese like people with small heights. In previous centuries Chinese consumed lot of meat, but no milk. 

Quote

The comment '30% of Indians are suffering from allergies' is typical twisting of facts from you - prove to us that all allergies are due to diet and not genetic. 

Please then you tell us how many of these 30% got the allergies due to pasteurized milk? The children who have been drinking raw milk, their tests showed almost no allergies. 

It is a reality that asthma and allergies are becoming epidemic and a nightmare. But nobody making the people aware that pasteurized milk is the culprit and the suffering people should not drink it, and others too avoid it while they are also at risk of getting this disease.

 

Only people who are making protest against it and helping the sufferers are the one who advocate for clean healthy raw milk.

 

Quote

Saying we should eat safe, cooked food is not equivalent to saying we should eat junk food or fast food. 

Health wise, what Fast Food is to Cooked food ... then it is same cooked food to raw food. 

 

Cooked food is causing all types of diseases. Especially cooked meat is causing many types of cancers due to it's potential dangers. 

 

It is much safer to eat the cooked vegetables as compared to full or hormones and anti-biotic meat, especially if one want to avoid the cancers. 

 

Healthy cultures like old Inuits and old Masais knew no cancers while they predominately ate raw meat and organs. 

 

Quote

I know for a fact that from French & German POV,its not about safety of the food but freedom of choice.

And where is your proof? 

You think that such advanced civilized nations like US, UK, Germany will put the life of their citizens on risk for any excuse? 
I am afraid you are not making a right conclusion here. These countries allowed it after taking the precautions which ultimately made the consumption of raw milk safer. 

 

Quote

My country does not believe in pandering to fad-diets as a standard, hence we do not give that consession towards more dangerous foods.

Canada is not the ONLY modern civilized country in the world. 

 

Despite this prohibition, there are thousands of Canadians who are drinking raw milk.  

 

Quote

Same was said by the anti-vaxxers. Then a few measles and preventable disease outbreak changed the popular opinion against them. 

In case of vaccination, the Western countries didn't change their law, but they changed it for the raw dairy and raw dairy products, considering them safe with some conditions. 

Quote

I repeat and i will keep saying - no amount of 'safe techniques and properly fed' animals will result in TB not being present in pork or other diseases that are in natural symbiosis with the said animals. 

Then don't eat pork.

But why then to put blame upon raw consumption of Sushi grade fish (pre frozen) and beef and lamb which has been consumed safely for decades in the West now? 

Healthy cultures like Masai are using raw meat and organs and even raw blood for centuries (without any problems and their health is optimal and could not be compared to the modern cooked meat diet which is causing all kinds of ailments and cancers. 

[mancalledsting]

On 5/7/2018 at 10:50 PM, Muloghonto said:

1. Not a scientific study. just a rag newspaper is quoted.

2. Asthma is not an allergy. People who have asthma don't just get asthma during pollen seaon or such, they have asthma when air quality is low and when they do high cardio exercises. 

3. There are hundreds of millions of Indians drinking pasteurized milk and they are not developing asthma or allergies either.

4. The article ITSELF mentions that pasteurized milk is safer.

Do not peddle psuedo-scientific stuff that are harmful to humans, such as consumption of raw meat, unpasteurized milk, anti-vaccine, etc. nonsense.

As i keep saying and you keep running away from it, its better to eat a less nutritious McDonalds burger, that is safe, over the greenest salad in the world covered in TB bacteria.  You wont always get TB either from eating food with TB bacteria in it, but your chances go up significantly.

The same is true for consumption of raw meat, unpasteurized milk, etc - the risk of disease goes up significantly.

 

There is this ridiculously dangerous and false beleif amongst fad-dieticians like you, that if the animals are fed proper,nutritious meals, it will lower the bacterial or contagion content. That is absolute, 100% rubbish. All animals have bacteria and parasites in symbiosis with itself and therefore, are going to be in the animal no-matter what.

The Pox category of diseases - from which smallpox, chickenpox, etc. comes, are naturally found in bovines. All bovines. Its called cow-pox when the bovines get it and for them it is a mild disease. ( we can also contract cow-pox). 

Same is true for Whooping cough in pigs, etc. 

Feeding these animals their optimal diet will make a difference to toxins in their body, quality of their meats, etc. but will do nothing to lower the concentration of these naturally occuring microbes in their bodies. 

The only safe way to eat them, is to cook the meat, to neutralize the risk of contagion. 

SO yes, my cooked meat may be less nutritious than your raw meat. But just like I'd rather eat a McDonald's burger than a salad with ebola virus on it, i'd rather eat cooked meat than raw meat. 

 

Asthma can be triggered by allergens also 

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Don't you know that salmons get their omega-3 by eating small wild fishes and shrimps etc. 

Therefore, farmed Salmons are also given "fishmeal" which is ultimately wild caught small fishes like sardines and anchovies. 

Now tell us how are you going to increase the farmed Salmon production without making oceans empty of wild small fishes? 

 

While milk is produced by the cows eating "Grass" which is in enough quantity to feed billions of people.  

 

Moreover, look at the other poisons in the farmed fish:

Simple- farm those fish too. 

Producing milk for billions of people by having billions of cows are far more damaging to the ecosystem than farming fish.

Cattle industry is the leading cause of greenhouse gases after power generation and transportation and accounts for 10% of global green house gases. 

As for other 'poisons'- your line of 'proper diet' will solve those issues.

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

//

 

 

Almost always. Europeans also fry their fish lightly, but it is enough heat during frying process to kill the DHA.

Skin plays no role if the inner temperature is rising. 

Actually in presence of skin, people tend to fry more in order to make the skin crispy. 

Frying fish lightly does not destroy DHA or Omega-3s. It reduces them, but not destroys them. And there is plenty omega-3 remaining to be effective. 

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Secondly, what about the rest of India?

Start eating fish. Simple. 

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Yes olive oil has low smoke point, meaning fish will not get too hot. 

But how many Indians could afford the olive oil for frying?

I am afraid problem does not lie with me. 

I have many times replied to this argument. Modern science has given us the knowledge how to make utilize this more healthy option safely. Even the governments have agreed that indeed these healthy foods could be consumed safely and thus allowed the sale of raw milk. While raw cheese and raw butter is sold just like normal pasteurized cheese and butter. 

Governments have given you the RIGHT to make stupid choices, just like some governments allow you to not vaccinate your children as well. Doesn't mean vaccines are now dangerous. 

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

It would be unfortunate if you still keep on blaming whole process of keeping these healthy process unsafe and dangerous. 

Eating raw meat and animal products *IS* dangerous. Scientifically proven. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Yes, vegetables also became part of human diet in the last 10000 years. But as I said before, humans are omnivores and raw milk is indeed beneficial to humans and has become a staple food all over the world. 

Plenty of human societies did just fine without milk. There were no cows in the new world before arrival of the Europeans. Yet, Europeans themselves note the massively superior physique of the natives when they arrive. 

 

Humans very rarely consumed raw meat. We have proof of this - every single human settlement that we've found evidence of - going back to 30,000 or more years, show the evidence of what they ate, in form of seeds of the fruits and bones of the animals. And all the animal bones show evidence of heat treatment, ie, cooking. 

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Without milk we will have Chinese like people with small heights. In previous centuries Chinese consumed lot of meat, but no milk. 

Everyone prior to modern diet was short. Dutch averaged 5'6 150 years ago for male height, now they are 6'2. 

So is the same with practically every industrial society. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Please then you tell us how many of these 30% got the allergies due to pasteurized milk? The children who have been drinking raw milk, their tests showed almost no allergies. 

Their tests show no allergy related asthma. not that they have no allergies. 

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

It is a reality that asthma and allergies are becoming epidemic and a nightmare. But nobody making the people aware that pasteurized milk is the culprit and the suffering people should not drink it, and others too avoid it while they are also at risk of getting this disease.

Pasteurized milk is not the culprit. If it were, we'd have similar rise in asthma and allergies from 1830s onwards. Yet, allergies and asthma are on the rise from 1960s. 

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Only people who are making protest against it and helping the sufferers are the one who advocate for clean healthy raw milk.

There is no such thing as clean raw milk. Raw milk = dangerous. 

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Health wise, what Fast Food is to Cooked food ... then it is same cooked food to raw food. 

False. Healthwise cooked food is to raw food what a McDonalds burger is to a salad covered in Ebola. 

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Cooked food is causing all types of diseases. Especially cooked meat is causing many types of cancers due to it's potential dangers. 

The risk of disease from cooked food is a far lesser one than risk of disease from infectious microbes in raw meat products. 

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

It is much safer to eat the cooked vegetables as compared to full or hormones and anti-biotic meat, especially if one want to avoid the cancers. 

It is also much safer to eat vegetables than raw meat. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Healthy cultures like old Inuits and old Masais knew no cancers while they predominately ate raw meat and organs. 

And they averaged 40 years or so as life expectancy, before modern diet and medicine raised that number significantly. 

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

And where is your proof? 

You think that such advanced civilized nations like US, UK, Germany will put the life of their citizens on risk for any excuse? 
I am afraid you are not making a right conclusion here. These countries allowed it after taking the precautions which ultimately made the consumption of raw milk safer. 

The same way some countries allow their citizens to have the choice to not vaccinate. You are creating a false equivalency between politics and scientific accuracy. 

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Canada is not the ONLY modern civilized country in the world. 

Nope. It isn't. And Germany or France are not the only modern civilized country in the world either. 

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Despite this prohibition, there are thousands of Canadians who are drinking raw milk.  

At their own risk, against the advice of medical professionals. You will find thanks to the internet, people like you - who read a few articles online and consider themselves experts to overrule professional opinion, are on the rise. 

 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

In case of vaccination, the Western countries didn't change their law, but they changed it for the raw dairy and raw dairy products, considering them safe with some conditions. 

False. There are western countries which allow you to have the choice to not vaccinate. Just like there are western countries that allow you the choice to eat dangerous raw meats. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Then don't eat pork.

But why then to put blame upon raw consumption of Sushi grade fish (pre frozen) and beef and lamb which has been consumed safely for decades in the West now? 

Pork was just an example. EVERY SINGLE animal on this planet has symbiotic microbes that are either beneficial to them or they are natural reservoirs of them. 

When people eat raw meat, these microbes get transferred to them. Bovines are natural resorvoirs of pox - chickenpox and smallpox comes from cows. No amount of healthy diet will remove these microbes from them, as these microbes are not a result of faulty practices or contaminants, they are naturally occuring to the species. This is a simple fact. 

This is why my example of 'cooked meat = McDonalds burger, raw meat = Green salad covered in Ebola' is a valid analogy.

 

No one is arguing that raw meat has more nutrients. You however, simply refuse to accept the fact that raw meat also has greater microbial load and thus, represent a zoonotic disease danger to mankind. 
 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Healthy cultures like Masai are using raw meat and organs and even raw blood for centuries (without any problems and their health is optimal and could not be compared to the modern cooked meat diet which is causing all kinds of ailments and cancers. 

and healthy cultures like Native Americans, when the Europeans came, who the Europeans themselves describe as 'Greek Gods rippling with muscle' didn't even consume milk and the only uncooked meat they ever ate was heavily cured meat like pemmican - which, due to its high salt and sulgar load, destroys the microbes in them. 

 

Repeat after me : raw meat is dangerous, due to naturally occuring microbes in the said meat. 

 

As i said, your fad-diet is dangerous to humanity, which is why i scoff at it. It masquerades as healthy while completely ignoring the dangerous aspects of it, all in the name of trying to be different. 

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Simple- farm those fish too. 

Then such salmon is not going to be afforded by majority of the people due to the double price. Salmon is itself a costly fish. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Producing milk for billions of people by having billions of cows are far more damaging to the ecosystem than farming fish.

Cattle industry is the leading cause of greenhouse gases after power generation and transportation and accounts for 10% of global green house gases. 

You cannot have all. 

If this is the reason then you should also ban the meat of the cow while they contribute half of the global green house gases. 

And you then also have to discard the fish as ocean fish also getting the mercury poison. 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

As for other 'poisons'- your line of 'proper diet' will solve those issues.

Please explain how in your own words. 

Proper Diet is not going to change the poisons in the farmed fish which contain dioxins, red dye and antibiotics. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Frying fish lightly does not destroy DHA or Omega-3s. It reduces them, but not destroys them. And there is plenty omega-3 remaining to be effective. 

Proof? 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Start eating fish. Simple. 

Not possible to produce so much fish which is enough for whole Indian population. 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Governments have given you the RIGHT to make stupid choices, just like some governments allow you to not vaccinate your children as well. Doesn't mean vaccines are now dangerous. 

I don't know much about vaccines. 

But it seems that your own modern civilized country i.e. Canada does not demand the compulsory vaccination. While you were claiming that experts of your country are wise. 

To me it does not seem to be the case of government surrendering to the people's will, but it is due to the reason that there are not any significant outbreaks of non-vaccination. 

 

Same is the case with raw milk in Germany, UK, USA where government agreed with the modern scientific studies that sanitized, refrigerated and properly handled raw milk is safe for consumption, and thus they later allowed the sale under only these conditions. 

 

Therefore, if you claim that the governments of Germany, UK, USA surrendering in front of peoples will, then you need proper proof and not the conjecture. 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Eating raw meat and animal products *IS* dangerous. Scientifically proven. 

But also scientifically proven that properly handled raw meat is not only more nutritious, but also not dangerous and thus fully allowed to be served in the restaurants all over the world. 

Why you bring only one part of the science and neglect/hide the other part? 

 

The case of eating raw meat is even much more stronger than the raw milk as there have been no epidemic outbreaks due to raw meat consumption. 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Humans very rarely consumed raw meat. We have proof of this - every single human settlement that we've found evidence of - going back to 30,000 or more years, show the evidence of what they ate, in form of seeds of the fruits and bones of the animals. And all the animal bones show evidence of heat treatment, ie, cooking. 

Could you please provide us the link that all bones showed heat treatment? 

It is due to the reason that in many cultures all over the world, they were eating raw meat or raw fish in one form or other. 

 

Whole Korea eats raw beef and raw fish and Korean women have the longest life. 
Whole Japan eats raw beef and raw fish and again their average age is almost at the top.

Whole China is eating rotten raw eggs and raw fish and raw meat dishes like "kuai".
Whole France eat Steak Tartare and raw Austern since unknown numbers of centuries. 
Whole Netherlands eat raw meat wurst (known as Ossenworst) and eat raw fish Maatjes. 
Whole German eats Mett and raw fish Maatjes.
Whole Scandinavian countries eating raw soured fish. 
Whole Thailand eats raw beef and raw fish.
Whole Vietnam eats raw fish and raw beef (koi soi)
Whole Ethopia eats raw beef.
Whole Middle East eats Kibbeh Nayyeh which is raw meat. 
Whole Maxico eats raw beef ceviche.
Whole Turkey/Armenia eat cig kofte
Whole Italy eats Beef Carpaccio
 

Many tribes in Africa consume raw meat like Masai.

Aborigines of Australia eating raw meat. 

Eskimos eating raw meat and raw fish.

Native American ate lot of raw meat and raw organs. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Everyone prior to modern diet was short. Dutch averaged 5'6 150 years ago for male height, now they are 6'2. 

Chinese were still shorter in stature than the average European of that time.

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Their tests show no allergy related asthma. not that they have no allergies. 

I have already pointed out that part of the article which is clear that it is not only Asthma, but pasteurized milk is producing other kinds of allergies too. 

//

Last November, researchers at London’s Population Health Research Institute reported in the journal PLOS ONE that UK children who drank unpasteurised milk had a significantly lower risk of rhinitis, hay fever and allergic conjunctivitis.

//

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Pasteurized milk is not the culprit. If it were, we'd have similar rise in asthma and allergies from 1830s onwards. Yet, allergies and asthma are on the rise from 1960s. 

Off course the studies are telling that raw milk is the culprit. 

And these diseases are hereditary, which means it took time to pass over to to the newer generations and becoming epidemic till 1960s.  Please also note that it is also possible that till 1960s and even later the laws were not strict and still many people were consuming the raw milk till that time. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

It is also much safer to eat vegetables than raw meat. 

Then the question is why don't you become a vegetarian and why to advise others to eat even the cooked meat which is causing cancer? 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

And they averaged 40 years or so as life expectancy, before modern diet and medicine raised that number significantly. 

False. 

I already pointed it out to you that this average life expectancy of 40 years is false regarding the ancient population of Inuit before they came in contact with the western civilization and they started eating the western food. 

 

Go and read the first study of those Inuits who were free from the Western food, and they lived up to 100 years without any cancer or other diseases. Mortality came mostly from accidents, warfare and infectious disease rather than chronic disease. 

 

This first study was done by the Russians between 1822 to 1836 and it truly reflects the Inuits life expectancy before they came in contact with the western food. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

At their own risk, against the advice of medical professionals. You will find thanks to the internet, people like you - who read a few articles online and consider themselves experts to overrule professional opinion, are on the rise. 

False. 

People all over the world have been drinking raw milk, and eating raw meat dishes for centuries and know their healing effects over the cooked food. 

And now modern science also supporting them that not only raw is nutritious over cooked, but also safe if handled properly, and result is this that more and more people are eating raw fish and raw meat, and drinking raw milk. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

and healthy cultures like Native Americans, when the Europeans came, who the Europeans themselves describe as 'Greek Gods rippling with muscle' didn't even consume milk and the only uncooked meat they ever ate was heavily cured meat like pemmican - which, due to its high salt and sulgar load, destroys the microbes in them. 

I am afraid it is not correct. 

Firstly pemmican (which was traditionally made by the Native Americans for centuries) is absolutely not a heavily cured meat with salt and sugar. Actually there is absolutely no salt and sugar in the traditional making of pemmican. 

Rather traditionally pemmican was made only with 50% dried raw meat, and 45% tallow and 5% dried berries. There was nothing else present in it. 

 

The following is a recipe used by the Hudson Bay Company in the early 1800’s.  This is taken from an early employment manual.

//

Link

“Pemmican: pound a quantity of jerky until shredded.  Cut fresh fat into walnut sized hunks and try out over a slow fire or in an oven.  Pour the hot fat over the shredded jerky and mix into a sausage meat like consistency [a 50/50 mix].  Pack mixture into waterproof bags.  Add dry berries if desired; do not salt.  It takes 5 lb of meat to make 1 lb jerky so pemmican isn’t overly fatty, just concentrated.”

//

 

Secondly, Native Americans were eating many parts of organ meat raw too like Brain and bone marrow, the second stomach, tripe and intestine (link). 

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Then such salmon is not going to be afforded by majority of the people due to the double price. Salmon is itself a costly fish. 

Industrial farming has scale of economy. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

You cannot have all. 

If this is the reason then you should also ban the meat of the cow while they contribute half of the global green house gases. 

Its not a zero sum game, either. Meat consumption is good for us, when cooked and should be encouraged in moderation. Same with animal products. 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

And you then also have to discard the fish as ocean fish also getting the mercury poison. 

Mercury poisoning is due to industrial processes contaminating the food supply. Irrelevant to what we are talking more or less, because again, industrial fish farms, especially in flooded-field farming model allows us to control our own source of water. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Please explain how in your own words. 

Proper Diet is not going to change the poisons in the farmed fish which contain dioxins, red dye and antibiotics. 

Read above. 

Fish farming is a relatively new and relatively unregulated industry, but has far better sustainability and health factor to meat-farming on the whole. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Proof? 

Google it. Frying fish destroys anywhere between 40-70% of omega-3s, when marinated with olive oil, it reduces it to <30%. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Not possible to produce so much fish which is enough for whole Indian population. 

If its possible to produce enough milk for human population of India, it definitely is possible to produce fish for us too. 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I don't know much about vaccines. 

But it seems that your own modern civilized country i.e. Canada does not demand the compulsory vaccination. While you were claiming that experts of your country are wise. 

Yes. And all our experts agree that vaccines are required. Something that should be done, does not equate to forcing people to do it, either.What government mandates you to do/not do is a matter of individual rights. Not scientific correctness of the position. 

Otherwise we'd be back in the Eugenics era. 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

To me it does not seem to be the case of government surrendering to the people's will, but it is due to the reason that there are not any significant outbreaks of non-vaccination. 

There are no significant outbreaks is because the number of people who follow such fad diets are a statistical insignificance. And since you lot have a religious mentality towards your food, its not exactly going to be commonplace to question your illnesses due to food either- confirmation bias at play. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Same is the case with raw milk in Germany, UK, USA where government agreed with the modern scientific studies that sanitized, refrigerated and properly handled raw milk is safe for consumption, and thus they later allowed the sale under only these conditions. 

They gave you the right to. Science tells us that raw milk is less safe than pasteurized milk. We have significant amount of science to say so. 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Therefore, if you claim that the governments of Germany, UK, USA surrendering in front of peoples will, then you need proper proof and not the conjecture. 

But also scientifically proven that properly handled raw meat is not only more nutritious, but also not dangerous and thus fully allowed to be served in the restaurants all over the world. 

Science proves that raw meat has more pathogens than cooked meat. Period. You exposed your ignorance when you saw pathogens as a matter of 'healthy cow vs unhealthy cow'. I am sorry, but you are arguing from a religious position here, without understanding the basics. 

All animals are natural reservoir to certain bacterias, virus, etc. that occur naturally in them. Even with the best possible diets, these creatures will have those microbes. Uncooked meat passes those microbes into us much more easily, especially if there are breaks in our own mucus membranes. 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Could you please provide us the link that all bones showed heat treatment? 

This is not a matter of an article claiming so. i study history pretty well. Not a single site i know of has shown raw animal bones with gnawing marks on it. You can confirm by studying the food remains of chalcolithic and paleolithic dwelling sites. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

It is due to the reason that in many cultures all over the world, they were eating raw meat or raw fish in one form or other. 

Very, very few cultures eat raw meat. Its a statistically insignificant number and even amongst tribal, hunter-gatherer populations documented, its a statistical rarity. Dont push your fad-diet religion on us please.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Whole Korea eats raw beef and raw fish and Korean women have the longest life. 

They eat very little raw beef and did not eat raw fish before its treated. Korea also gives out advisory towards sushi regularly due to infestation issues. They eat almost all other meat cooked and they definitely eat way more Korean bbq style meat than carpaccio style meat. I know this, because i know a lot of koreans, have been to korea and i like their food. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Whole Japan eats raw beef and raw fish and again their average age is almost at the top.

See above. 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Whole China is eating rotten raw eggs and raw fish and raw meat dishes like "kuai".

They are prepared, not raw and rotten. Nobody lets an egg sit around for 3 years in the open, crack it open and eat it. Stop displaying ignorance. 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Chinese were still shorter in stature than the average European of that time.

False. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I have already pointed out that part of the article which is clear that it is not only Asthma, but pasteurized milk is producing other kinds of allergies too. 

//

Last November, researchers at London’s Population Health Research Institute reported in the journal PLOS ONE that UK children who drank unpasteurised milk had a significantly lower risk of rhinitis, hay fever and allergic conjunctivitis.

//

Off course the studies are telling that raw milk is the culprit. 

And these diseases are hereditary, which means it took time to pass over to to the newer generations and becoming epidemic till 1960s.  Please also note that it is also possible that till 1960s and even later the laws were not strict and still many people were consuming the raw milk till that time. 

It still doesnt change the fact that its better to have people with allergies than people die from a fad diet and listeria and such outbreaks, which were more common. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Then the question is why don't you become a vegetarian and why to advise others to eat even the cooked meat which is causing cancer? 

 Because meat, when cooked, is the optimal diet for protein and enzymes for humans. Optimal in terms of nutrition AND safety. This is a fact. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

False. 

I already pointed it out to you that this average life expectancy of 40 years is false regarding the ancient population of Inuit before they came in contact with the western civilization and they started eating the western food. 

You have not. Life expectancy of all pre-industrial societies were in the 40-ish range inclusive of child mortality and high 50s excluding it. Inuits today live longer. Also a fact. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Go and read the first study of those Inuits who were free from the Western food, and they lived up to 100 years without any cancer or other diseases. Mortality came mostly from accidents, warfare and infectious disease rather than chronic disease. 

Hardly any inuit lives for a 100 years- same with any other human group. Centanarians, by and large account for less than 2% of the given population. So your conclusion is irrelevant with statistical insignificance towards the majority. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

False. 

People all over the world have been drinking raw milk, and eating raw meat dishes for centuries and know their healing effects over the cooked food. 

And people were dying a lot more from food borne contagion before safter standards were promoted. 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

And now modern science also supporting them that not only raw is nutritious over cooked, but also safe if handled properly, and result is this that more and more people are eating raw fish and raw meat, and drinking raw milk. 

Nonsense. You are twisting modern science and i ask again - show me a paper that says zoonotic disease risk is not greater with raw meat. 

I can supply plenty of papers on zoonotic diseases from J-stor, but it wont link here due to it being a paid site. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I am afraid it is not correct. 

Firstly pemmican (which was traditionally made by the Native Americans for centuries) is absolutely not a heavily cured meat with salt and sugar. Actually there is absolutely no salt and sugar in the traditional making of pemmican. 

It is still a cured meat. the meat is dried for days, then prepared with berries in most cases, adding sugar. 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Rather traditionally pemmican was made only with 50% dried raw meat, and 45% tallow and 5% dried berries. There was nothing else present in it. 

Berries. Sugar. 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Secondly, Native Americans were eating many parts of organ meat raw too like Brain and bone marrow, the second stomach, tripe and intestine (link). 

Not raw. And they were dying more from food-borne illnesses too.

 

It is a medical fact that western human population, as a whole, represent the apex of health achieved currently, going back hundreds, if not thousands of years anywhere on the planet. 

[Muloghonto]

scientific, in-depth article, that proves that raw milk is far more dangerous due to its microbial content, than pasteurized milk:

 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/23/6/15-1603_article

 

As a parent, i would rather have a kid with allergy, than a dead kid. 

 

[Alam_dar]

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Industrial farming has scale of economy. 

It is simply not possible at least in case of Salmon.

Herring fish and anchovies got their omega-3 by eating phytoplankton and zooplankton in the ocean. And Salmon get their omega-3 by eathing these Herring and anchovies. 

 

In practice, farms are even unable to maintain the present level of farmed Salmon, but they have to replace the fishmeal from the  cheap bean which is not a natural diet of Salmon, and thus omega-3 content decreased more. Even with this cheap soy diet, still the price of farmed Salmon is already out of reach of normal Indian family. 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Its not a zero sum game, either. Meat consumption is good for us, when cooked and should be encouraged in moderation. Same with animal products. 

Yes it is not a zero sum game. Grass is already there on the planet and Milk consumption is good for us and the main and sustainable (as compared to the meat) source of diet could not be replaced. 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

If its possible to produce enough milk for human population of India, it definitely is possible to produce fish for us too. 

Grass is already available on the planet earth.

Fish would not be able to replace the milk in the next 50-100 years (if ever). 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes. And all our experts agree that vaccines are required. Something that should be done, does not equate to forcing people to do it, either.What government mandates you to do/not do is a matter of individual rights. Not scientific correctness of the position. 

You are contradicting yourself, while you said that your Canadian government is not ready to give people their right of choice in case of raw milk. 

Why then for vaccination and consumption of raw fish and raw meat in the restaurants? Reason is not what you are claiming (i.e. People's choice), but reason is scientific facts that indeed there are no major outbreaks of epidemic in this case. While if there had been considerable outbreaks in case of vaccination and raw meat/fish then they would have also been banned against the will of the people as it has been in the case of raw milk. 

While according to the German, UK, US the sanitized controlled raw milk is safe enough to be consumed, and thus they allowed it while no major outbreaks reported for usage of such controlled raw milk, and people's choice meant nothing in it. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

There are no significant outbreaks is because the number of people who follow such fad diets are a statistical insignificance.

Please prove us that significant Percent of outbreaks have been reported by using government approved controlled raw milk consumption in the small community which consumes raw milk. You could not come up here with your "numbers" argument, but you have to bring the Percent. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Science proves that raw meat has more pathogens than cooked meat. Period. You exposed your ignorance when you saw pathogens as a matter of 'healthy cow vs unhealthy cow'. I am sorry, but you are arguing from a religious position here, without understanding the basics. 

Problem does not lie with me. I have been constantly arguing for "healthy diet" and "sanitization" which has been accepted as safe enough even by the US, UK, Germany. But you constantly neglect this sanitization part and keep on blaming me for being religious in this matter. I find it is very unfair of you while you are religiously neglecting the whole facts and arguments. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

This is not a matter of an article claiming so. i study history pretty well. Not a single site i know of has shown raw animal bones with gnawing marks on it. You can confirm by studying the food remains of chalcolithic and paleolithic dwelling sites. 

Please bring your evidence that no raw meat diet consumed during whole whole homo evolution. 

I have already showed you many many cultures who have been using raw meat and raw fish even today, which is undeniable proof. 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Very, very few cultures eat raw meat. Its a statistically insignificant number and even amongst tribal, hunter-gatherer populations documented, its a statistical rarity. Dont push your fad-diet religion on us please.

Wrong. It is SIGNIFICANT number of cultures and people who have been using raw meat and raw fish in one form or another. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

They eat very little raw beef and did not eat raw fish before its treated. Korea also gives out advisory towards sushi regularly due to infestation issues. They eat almost all other meat cooked and they definitely eat way more Korean bbq style meat than carpaccio style meat. I know this, because i know a lot of koreans, have been to korea and i like their food. 

It is not about eating what more or what less, but it is about having the culture of eating raw meat and raw fish since ages. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

They are prepared, not raw and rotten. Nobody lets an egg sit around for 3 years in the open, crack it open and eat it. Stop displaying ignorance. 

Then you have no idea about the usage of rotten eggs by the Chinese. They are absolutely not prepared but only processed raw with mud, lime, ash, rice hull. They are absolutely delicacy in China. 

//

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

Century Egg

Century egg or Pidan (Chinese: 皮蛋; pinyin: pídàn), also known as preserved egg, hundred-year egg, thousand-year egg, thousand-year-old egg, millennium egg, skin egg and black egg, is a Chinese preserved food product and delicacy made by preserving duck, chicken or quail eggs in a mixture of clay, ash, salt, quicklime, and rice hulls for several weeks to several months, depending on the method of processing.

//

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

False. 

Not false. Chinese were indeed shorter in stature and it was due to not consuming the milk which helps in providing high level proteins which ultimately helps to gain height. The animal protein comes after milk when it comes to height and stature while milk proteins are better than meat proteins. 

 

Look at this detailed scientific study:

 

//

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X16300065

The intake of protein from milk products (dairy proteins) emerges as the most significant nutritional correlate of stature not only in Europe, but in all 93 countries examined in this study (r = 0.79; p < 0.001) (Table 3b; Appendix Fig. 14), followed by total protein (r = 0.74; p < 0.001) and animal protein (r = 0.73; p < 0.001). The most negative nutritional correlate in the total sample is again rice (r = −0.74; p < 0.001).

//

 

Quote

It still doesnt change the fact that its better to have people with allergies than people die from a fad diet and listeria and such outbreaks, which were more common. 

I wished you first accepted openly the suffering of this huge number of children from all types of allergies and asthma due to the pasteurization, rather than once again neglecting their sufferings in name of fad diet. 

Due to this same negligence numbers of sufferers has become epidemic but still people are not aware that it is the pasteurized milk which is the culprit. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Because meat, when cooked, is the optimal diet for protein and enzymes for humans. Optimal in terms of nutrition AND safety. This is a fact. 

Not optimal, as optimal nutrition is present only in the raw meat. 

And more safety only against the non sanitized meat, but no safety against the other diseases of conversion of bad fat and cancer like diseases and other poisonous  substances formed during the process of cooking. 

 

When one talks of an "Optimal Diet" which could maximum heal, then it is only raw meat/milk (which has been cleanly processed and refrigerated and high quality feed is used for more and more omega-3 production). 

 

And the enzymes and good bacterias are already dead in the cooked meat. 

 

You could use only raw papaya in order to tenderize the meat, while raw papaya have the living enzymes to digest the food. If you use cooked papaya to tenderize the meat, then you will fail as the enzymes are already dead due to cooking. 

 

Similarly, enzymes are dead in cooked grains like rice and lentils and such cooked grains could never germinate. The process of germination is only possible in the living rice and lentil grains which are not cooked. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You have not. Life expectancy of all pre-industrial societies were in the 40-ish range inclusive of child mortality and high 50s excluding it. Inuits today live longer. Also a fact. 

I am afraid your conjecture has no value in this case while we have study about the Inuits which proves they were ageing to 100 years before coming in contact with the western food. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Hardly any inuit lives for a 100 years- same with any other human group. Centanarians, by and large account for less than 2% of the given population. So your conclusion is irrelevant with statistical insignificance towards the majority. 

Please show us where I used the word "majority"? I only wrote they live up to 100 years, and then the reference of the study was given which was clear few of them indeed lived till 100 years, while some died in their 80s. And this same study made it clear that reason for death in the early ages was mostly accidents due to harsh living conditions, and unavailability of any kind of medication, not even the traditional herbs medication. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

It is still a cured meat. the meat is dried for days, then prepared with berries in most cases, adding sugar. 

Berries. Sugar. 

False. It is still raw cured meat. 

There is  nothing against if people eat such raw cured meats, while it is much more nutritious than any cooked meat which creates poisonous stuffs. 

 

And if you have read the link I provided you, then it was clear that Native Americans were not even using the berries, but only the raw dried meat and the fat (without any salt) in the pemmican. But when White Americans started making pemmican, then they used berries too for the taste. 

 

Moreover, your main claim was "usage of salt" which has been proved false. You should have concentrated on correcting upon this mistake of yours before jumping to the berries. 

 

And what is against the usage of "Dried RAW berries"? I have nothing against using them in the pemmican or eating them alone. They are indeed healthy and in no way destroying the "microbes" as you claimed in your post. 

 

You wrote:

//
... (Native Americans) heavily cured meat like pemmican - which, due to its high salt and sulgar load, destroys the microbes in them. 

//

Contrary to your claims:

(1) They absolutely not "heavily" cured the meat for pemmican. Meat still stayed raw after the drying. 

(2) And they didn't use the salt to kill the microbes, which today is done in the modern societies. 

(3) And there were no loads of sugar as maximum 5% Berries were used and no way they were killing the microbes, but they contained only healthy nutrients due to raw drying. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Not raw. And they were dying more from food-borne illnesses too.

Off course they ate  Brain and bone marrow, the second stomach, tripe and intestine totally raw too as has been clearly mentioned in the article. 

It is not a positive practice to neglect the clear proofs. 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

It is a medical fact that western human population, as a whole, represent the apex of health achieved currently, going back hundreds, if not thousands of years anywhere on the planet. 

I beg to differ. 

Western population have got the "longer" life expectancy while modern medicines are keeping you alive with your disease for longer periods.

 

Nevertheless, "Health" is something different than longer life expectancy. We are living longer, but quality of life is not better and we enter older age only to be confronted by arthritis, respiratory problems, cardiovascular illness, cancer, dementia and Parkinson, that greatly diminish our quality of life.

 

You could read some of articles in this regard here:

 

 

Adults Today Are Much Less Healthy Than Previous Generation

 

Yes we are living longer but are we healthier now than 100 years ago?