Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Time Online

    69d 18h 21m 7s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. The Never Ending Thread

    @ravishingravi A thought occured to me and I am surprised it took me so long: are you : Ravi Singh Ravi or Ravishing Ravi ?
  2. Modi’s snub of Justin Trudeau

    a tiny portion of them revolted. Which is why it was squashed so quickly.
  3. Modi’s snub of Justin Trudeau

    Indian kings did not provide the stability as the British or the superior governance of the British. Hence Indians were so loyal to the British. People dont care for what race/nationality their kings are, more than whether their society is stable or not.
  4. Liberals' pet terrorists.

    Then help us out with a direct quote from the article you posted. Show us a quote that blames secessionism on christianity. I understand that hinduvtas think anyone who sticks to a legal process and dismisses their bharwagiri without evidence, is a chootiya. You should move from Canada to Texas...your types proliferate there. Show me racism like the NE faces 2 hrs from Delhi. Till then, sit,son, for you are ignoring the racial grievances of the NE that we ALL know exist- especially from you hindi-stanis.
  5. Liberals' pet terrorists.

    It is messed up because people like you lack the balls to address the real ills of India and instead engage in vote-bank ego-stroking politics of 'its all anti-Hindu/anti-Bhaarat-maa'. Ie, Indians lack social spine....starting with the Hinduvtas themselves. To prove to you that anti-government is not pro-secessionist. There is proof that maoists are anti-Indian government. All data indicate that they are like the Bolsheviks- they dont want to seperate, they want to change India.
  6. Liberals' pet terrorists.

    Nowhere has the case been made that secessionism in NE is due to religion. Or the Danes didnt extradite him, because India failed to provide probable or just cause. You have a strange concept of what flies for proof.....apparently suspicion of some hindu fundamentalists = proof. No. NE faces racism from you hindi-stanis and many Bongs. you use the term 'chaptaa' for them. They face far worse than any other part of India and that is a fact.
  7. Liberals' pet terrorists.

    Just as i thought. No data, no proof. Just dodging. I did read the link. The link does not prove your supposition that maoists are funded/supported by North Europeans. Show us the evidence that the origin of the plane is from Northern Europe. You have not. You have just brushed all the grievances of NE under the religion carpet to absolve responsibility, further fuelling their secessionism. No, you are the one blaming others for wanting to seperate from India due to 70 years of racism and 2nd class citizenship, on religion to absolve responsibility for the social ills created by the hindi-majority politics of New Delhi
  8. Liberals' pet terrorists.

    So you have no evidence to suggest that NE wants independence because they are Christian, instead of mistreatment and second-class citizen status for 70 years. And you wonder why india is so easy to mess up. Except there is no deductive reasoning employed to suggest that they want to secede. When October revolution happened to overthrow Tsarist Russia, it wasn't an independence movement- nobody wanted to break away from Russia. They wanted to CHANGE Russia. Maoist manifesto claims the same. You have presented ZERO reasoning or evidence to override it.
  9. Liberals' pet terrorists.

    So go ahead and prove it then. LOL. science talk coming from you is a bit rich. You won't go that route, is because i called out your BS. Simple. Do you even read the links you provide ? A quick check shows that the allegation is Congress dropping arms to overthrow the state govt. of WB. How the * is that religious secessionism/secessionism of the maoists ?!? LOL. Says the man who is yet to prove or provide a single shred of evidence that seperatism in NE is due to religion. Infact, its idiots like YOU who fuel the seperatism in the NE. NE wants seperatism, is because you hindi-stanis are racist towards them, ignore the area for development and then when they want to be seperate, instead of acknowledging and addressing the faults of Delhi, blame it on secessionism because 'they are half-chini/christians'. Any sane person would want nothing to do with your type of hindi-stanis after 7 decades of second-class citizen treatment.
  10. Liberals' pet terrorists.

    Except you have presented no evidence to support the claim that the secessionism is religious secessionism. Thats your propaganda. Nowhere has a single Maoist in India has said they want a seperate state from India. So you are making stuff up.
  11. Liberals' pet terrorists.

    Except it is not a CHRISTIAN secessionist movement. Idiot. you are conflating religious seperatism with simple seperatism. I've been out of the jahilliyat of hinduism or any other religion closet for many years now. Prove to us that maoists are secessionist.
  12. Liberals' pet terrorists.

    None of it is secessionist. And Swarajyamag ? LOL. Hinduvta mouthpiece is not a source for anything except hinduvta bigotry. True. Except there is no religious war. people are free to convert as they see fit. Because Khalistanis were secessionist. none of the maoist-christian terrorists, etc. are secessionist.
  13. Liberals' pet terrorists.

    Pot...kettle...fish. You have not demonstrated your supposition, so it remains a supposition. It means exactly what i said in a non-science/math-based context. yep i did. Show us this so-called 'christian nation foundation' premise in the NE. Show us some evidence of such a claim. Just as i thought- a hindu superiorist thinking that not imposing hindu superiorism = supporting secessionism. Ie, strawman argument.
  14. This is a scientific paper : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221549/ Why ? It has all the citations, table of data, actual data analysis and is peer-reviewed.. This is a propaganda piece 'fake news' type article: https://www.seleneriverpress.com/historical/abstracts-on-the-effect-of-pasteurization-on-the-nutritional-value-of-milk/ Why ? Because it provides no data actual data analysis and is not peer reviewed. Just propaganda and random quotations.
  15. Yours is not a scientific paper. Mine is. Scientific paper include citation, data, tabulation and is checked by scientific sources. Yours is a random website. Again, total nonsense twisting of the study. One does not need human body study to conclude if X is safer than Y and what is the nutritional value of X compared to Y. Its called chemistry. Or more precisely, 'food science'. Your criticism is irrelevant. You are not a scientist. Your criticism comes from a religious position, something you are familiar yourself with from arguing with religious muslims : ill-qualified people knee-jerk defend their religion. Like you are doing here. The effects on human body does not lie. The fact that people die from consuming raw milk and meat and it is not recommended for infirm people, is raw, empirical proof that raw meat & milk is less safe than cooked meat and pasteurized milk. Personal experience without control group study is nothing more than egotistic nonsense and failure to recognize placebo effect. Found a new word, have you ? Now go educate yourself what placebo effect is, instead of making up nonsense. I cannot suffer from placebo effect if i can only accept data-normalized studies. The reason the # of raw-meat eaters and raw milk drinkers is increasing, is due to the internet. Because people like you, think that a little ignorant internet searches, listening to charlatans prattle, etc. is superior to YEARS of education, expert training and professional experience. The same type of foolish idiots who seek to override doctors in health advice. Because egotistic fools like yourself love to feel important and different. Ie, you guys are like the flat-earthers. Denying science, coming up with nonsense, just to be different. And if scientific fact cannot change your opinion, then it just shows, you just are following your new religion of food-fads. PS: Use your brain for a change. Nobody wins via pasteurization of the milk. Milk suppliers have no bloody reason to add an extra step towards heating milk - creates extra work for them for no benefit. The fact that it is overwhelmingly recommended by experts in nutrition and medicine, with opposition comming from quacks like yourself, shows us that your position is nothing more than a fad.
  16. Oh so inorder to protect your beleif system, you now cook up consipiracy nonsnse. Not a scientific piece. As i said, i have no time for propaganda nonsense from illiterate people. Scientific papers only. You have failed to understand or refute the scientific paper i presented that clearly state there is ZERO BENEFIT TO RAW MILK NUTRITIONALLY TO PASTUERIZED MILK AND RAW MILK IS MORE DANGEROUS. A scientific paper stating that cannot be overriden by random website that do not present citation, data or research. You can state what you like. Its your religion, clearly. Atleast you approach it like one: you are ill-qualified yourself in the field, refuse to consider expert citation & scientific paper and stick to your belief system. The only valid precaution towards consuming milk healthily, is via pasteurization. End of story. Nonsense. Show me a single scientific paper that claims 100% healthy cattle do not pass on these bacteria into the milk. Hey genius, pasteurization process was invented BEFORE industrial farming of cattle. Ie, back when cattle were 100% grass fed. And STILL people died from eating raw milk due to these bacterias present in it. Nonsense. The reason we don't need to pasteurize mother's milk is because humans have the SAME SYMBIOTIC BACTERIA. So it doesnt affect us. Keep exposing your total ignorance on HOW these bacterias end up in the milk or meat. Not because of 'unhygenic process' - like the duffers in the raw-meat fad like to claim. But because these bacterias are natural to these animals, live in symbiosis with them and dangerous to certain animals- we happen to be one of those animals. This is basic biology. If it aint good for compromised immune system people, but pasteurized milk is, then it means pasteurized milk is safer for consumption. Pretty straightforward logic. Rather not, because expert evidence suggests its less safe method of consumption. Again, you are assuming. Show us where it says its only limited to fresh-water fish. Do you even know if this fish is a salmon type fish that lives in ocean but migrates into the rivers to hatch eggs ? Or it is being noticed there because that part of Thailand is one of the few places left that does not practice safe fish eating practice of cooking the fish. Show us where it says it takes 50 years for the infection to become fatal. Stop inventing lies to support your religion of raw meat BS. So ? any unsafe practice has a small % of people who remain unaffected. Its an elitist and dangerous argument to say that since its safe for a tiny subset but dangerous for most, lets follow it. I hope you know there are people who are partners to HIV+ people, have unprotected sex and have not been infected, either. Very few, but they exist. Or we can follow the safer practice of cooking the fish. More proof that cooking is a safer way to eat fish than raw fish. This is not a scientific study. I presented a scientific paper. Citation, data, reference. Hosted by a science mirror site.Not some random nonsense from the web. Again,not scientific study but propaganda. Your intention is to worship your false religion of raw foods, which is more dangerous to consume, because you stupidly think that slightly better nutritional content in SOME of those foods (not milk for eg) is worth the risk. A senseless, religious position. There is nothing wrong in imposing safety standards. Its called being part of the society. FDA exists for a reason. People are not free to start unsafe practices, because those same people are exposing their children to the same unsafe practices. Your kids should not suffer for your ignorance of expert opinion on matters you are not an expert in. No, because the extremes do not define the health of a population. If your population has 0.001% people who make it to 100 and I have half that number, but 30% of my people make it to 75 and only 5% of yours do, mine is a healthier population with better life-expectancy. Its called better math. There is no evidence of such a diet being beneficial and plenty of evidence that such a diet is harmful for us. Show us evidence of this claim. Doctors know more than you do on their subject and their subject is how to keep humans healthy. Keep your egotistic ignorance out of common-space. You are not an expert. You do not know even basic biology. You make up nonsense about healthy grain-fed cows = no more symbiotic bacteria in their milk. The alternative to random, ignorant personal experience, is sheer weight of scientific research and data. Just like i will take a pilot's opinion on flying a plane over yours, so too i will take doctors opinion on safe and unsafe health practices over these fad-food fanatics who are not qualified.
  17. Again, that is not science. its propaganda. I have already presented the scientific paper in question, replete with the sources, citation and data and even highlighted the fact for you that raw milk has ZERO health benefits over pasteurized milk. I have also presented the study that CLEARLY shows that pasteurized milk eliminates tuberculosis and other dangerous bacterias from the milk. You have no idea what placebo effect really is. Which is why you are making innane claims you do not understand. You, a single subject saying your uncontrolled experience ( uncontrolled in the scientific sense) is not placebo effect but 'reality' is nothing more than ignorant ego-tistic nonsense. Remember one thing- you are not an expert on nutrition or medicine and nutritionists and doctors are near unanimous that raw meat & milk are dangerous for us. So you lose. Simple. I can see no such thing because you have not presented a single scientific study like I have. You have presented propaganda. thats it. Again, nonsense. Cattle are not ill because they carry such bacteria. Bacteria are found often in natural symbiotic state with various animals. We have bacterias in us that are benign and even useful to us (called symbiosis), that can be deadly to other animals. Same appllies to bacteria in cattle, pig, goats etc. There is nothing ill about a cattle carrying tb bacteria, as it is in symbiosis in the cattle. Just like pigs are in symbiosis with rubella. Infected in this sense means host cattle, as used in the previous statement. Ofcourse dangerous food will be even more dangerous to immuno-compromised people. Thank you for proving my point that raw milk & raw meat are most dangerous to weak people because the product itself is unsafe. Again, total nonsense. Show me where in the article it says its an issue of sanitization. Nowhere does it mention so and that is your mistaken nonsense beleif. These dangeros bacteria occur naturally in ALL bovine species. Continue exposing your ignorance. The article says C.Burnetti does not multiply outside of the host cattle. That does not mean it doesn't live. It simply means its in a low activity life cycle devoid of reproduction - which upon entering a new host body (us after eating unsafe raw milk) begin to multiply. Had you passed high school biology, you'd easily have known this basic fact about bacterial growth & transmission. Strange that such an ignorant person like you, in basic biology, can have such strong convictions and make nonsense up on the spot. I guess you are victim to brainwashing by this food-fad group.You know how it works, since you rail on muslims for being brainwashed like you are with this nonsense.
  18. India’s best and worst journalists ( TV and print )

    Every news channel will have bias. Simply from the factor of omission : not all news will be covered. Cannot be covered. So what the channel chooses to omit, is bias. There is a difference between false information, which is perjury/libel and selective reporting - which every single news site is forced to do due to time & space constraint. And if the news service says 'we are a conservative platform, i want you to represent the conservative angle', then it is utterly unprofessional to not do so.
  19. This is nothing more than narcissitic bullshit. You are basically telling me, that with literally 50-50 chance of being right or wrong, you'd rather believe that what you are doing to your own body is 'right' than be humble, get the education (scientific- not just being a google master) and being a responsible person. Ie, classic, narcissitic 'i know i am right' BS. I don't need to prove that you are NOT of the placebo group. Thats not how science works. Science works in proving a positive in most cases - you need to prove that your observation is not placebo effect. Pffft. a few million idiots out of 7 billion is nothing. There are also millions of flat-earthers on this planet. These people you are part of, are of two categories : a) Change for the sake of change and anything different = better b) attention-seeking idiots who think a few weeks of youtube and google searches overrides years of professional education in nutrition. Your argument is 100% BS. There is zero evidence that diet of cattle or other animals has any effect whatsoever to the level of symbiotic bacterias found in their meat. Don't cherry-pick. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221549/ Read and weep. " extensive research was conducted to determine the heat treatment required to kill Mycobacterium tuberculosis which, at the time, was considered to be the most heat-resistant pathogen associated with milk (Hammer, 1948). " "In 1956, minimal pasteurization temperatures were slightly increased to those listed in Table 7.1 to assure destruction of Coxiella burnetti, the organism associated with Q fever, which was found to be more heat resistant than M. tuberculosis (Enright et al., 1957)." "The pasteurization conditions described in Table 7.1 were found to result in destruction of 100,000 infective guinea pig doses of C. burnetti. Therefore, on July 16, 1956, the U.S. Assistant Surgeon General released a recommendation for a minimum raw milk heat treatment of 145°F for 30 min or 161°F for 15 sec to ensure protection of the public from exposure to C. burnetti through consumption of milk." So thanks to pasteurization, milk is no longer a carrier for tuberculosis, Q-fever and such like. As i said, keep your 'raw stuff is healthier' nonsense out of public space. Raw stuff is dangerous. Clinically proven. Its better to eat safe and less nutritious food than unsafe & more nutritious food. BS. Read the article i presented. Refrigeration does nothing to contain tuberculosis or Q-fever bacteria in milk. You are simply spreading wrong & dangerous info because its your belief system. it absolutely is as dangerous as advertised. You steered away from the simple fact that Thailand has the highest case of liver cancer in the world, all from eating raw fish found in thailand which has liver flukes in them. This is what eating raw food gets you - closer to death. Which is why our ancestors invented cooking - to ward off death from eating dangerous raw meats & fish. Pfft. more propaganda. http://articles.extension.org/pages/27734/the-benefits-of-pasteurized-milk https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm079516.htm http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/the-doctor-who-is-fighting-against-the-thai-dish-that-killed-his-parents/ "The dish is something known as koi pla, a cheap meal made by mincing raw fish with herbs, spices, and lemon juice, and is particularly popular in one of Thailand’s poorest regions, Isaan. Eaten by millions of people, the dish is also known to have a deadly side effect: It can cause those who eat it to develop fatal liver cancer." "Although some claim that raw milk has improved nutritional value, cures diseases, and even tastes better, raw milk has no scientifically documented health benefits. It is strongly discouraged for children, those that are pregnant, elderly, and those with weakened immune systems because they have the greatest risk of food borne illness from raw milk and milk products. Pregnant women also run the additional risk of miscarriage. Is pasteurized milk really safer? Yes! Pasteurization is not just another form of processing that should be eliminated. It is not a process that is mandated to save time or money, but rather a process that is designed for the safety of the consumer.Sources: Bradley J, Pickering LK, Jareb J. Advise families against giving children unpasteurized milk. AAP News. 2008:29(12):29.Oliver SP, Boor KJ, Murphy SC, Murinda SE. Food safety hazards associated with consumption of raw milk. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2009;6(7):793-806." Keep your propagana sites, with zero citation of medical authority and sources, to yourself. BS. My article demonstrates that pasteurization kills tuberculosis bacteria in milk. Present us a scientific study that grass fed cows do not secrete tuberculosis bacteria into their milk. Doesn't matter how we handle it. The contents of raw meat & milk products is what makes it dangerous. Freezing or chilling it does not kill the dangerous bacterias in raw foods. Western world does not consume raw fish. Sushi fish is not raw fish. its chemically treated fish. Thai people eat raw fish and they have the highest prevalence rate of liver cancer due to liver flukes in raw fish. Because safety of my food is way more important than nutritional value of my food. A piece of cardboard is more prefferable to eat than the best salad in the world with an AIDS patient's virus smeared over it. How difficult is that to understand ?!? Every culture has a tiny % of people living up to 100+ years. Inuits are no special in this way and its a proven fact that Inuit life expectancy has massively increased due to modern medicine and modern food, while their life-expectancy in adulthood was far lower than their tribal counterparts elsewhere, who ate cooked food. Everyone in India eats 100% cooked meat diet. Every single person. Last Indians are not dying within 5 years of eating cooked meat. Nonsense & false propaganda. The disease they have, is due to massively greater life-expectancy. When only 10% of your population makes it past 60, they are naturally going to have far less amount of 'old people diseases' like Cancer, Alzheimers, etc, compared to a society where 40-50% of people make it to 60+. It is not raw, because it is treated with chemicals to change the chemical composition of the meat. The objective is to kill the bacteria in the meat. its most readily accomplished by cooking the meat. but exposure to sunlight under high salt load can do the same thing. Same way Sushi fish isn't raw. Nobody eats sushi straight-away carved from a fish just caught out of the ocean. its illegal, dangerous and not recommended. Your own link says that the loss of omega-3 acids were minimal in cooked tuna and only present in fried tuna. Ie, no surprise that oils break down in presence of other oil sources (the frying oil) but cooked normally, remains unaffected. As i have said and proven with links, raw fish + raw meat + raw milk = dangerous and medically NOT recommended. Doctors know more about nutrition and food than you do. A few youtube video clicks, self-medicating and a sky-high ego that thinks your 100 hours of dithering on the internet can override 20,000 hours of professional study & experience, doesn't make it so.
  20. http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/consequences-eating-rare-meat-10828.html These are the dangers of eating raw meat. And no amount of 'grass fed cows or ethically farmed fish' will get rid of these bacterias from their meats, because these bacterias live in symbiotic relationship with the said animals. kindly stop propagating dangerous eating habits in the name of health-fads, especially when they are unscientific, untested nonsense propagated by self-diagnosing youtuber-types.
  21. Sure. But you are not in a position to self-judge that. As the saying goes 'the problem with crazy people is they do not know they are crazy' Again, this cannot be self-judged. Sure. That may have nothing to do with the diet itself and it may just be YOUR body. It may just be YOUR enzyme level or your allergenic reaction to certain foods, etc. So you are in no position to determine, by the process of self-diagnosis, that what works for you is not a personal quirk of your own body. Again, this is dangerous nonsense. Grass fed or non grass fed has nothing to do with microbial content of milk. Raw milk should not be consumed, period, because its dangerous to consume raw milk. Utterly false. These standards have nothing to do with bacterial content in raw milk, anymore than what you eat/dont eat changing the bacterial cultures on your own skin. Thinking it does, demosntrates lack of understanding of biology. As i keep saying, health benefits of nutrition are secondary concern to whether a product is safe or unsafe to consume. The world's healthiest salad covered in ebola is a worse option than a stale but sterilized McDonald's burger. And Europe had much greater prevalence of botulism and death from botulism before pasteurization. None of those standards have anything to do with the bacterial content in the meat. You seem to be under this false notion that healthier animals = less bacteria in their meat. Thats not how it works. Most megafauna (which means animals that are not microscripic) have symbiotic relationship with dozens upon dozens of bacteria types. These bacterias live in the bodies of their host and varies from type of host. And its these bacterias that are dangerous for consumption for humans. So it doesnt matter how healthy your cow is. The bacteria in its meat is dangerous to us, period. Inuits did not have the ability to cook their meat due to lack of fire. And sure enogh, as soon as modern tech caught up with them, their inferior raw meat diet started to decline and inuit life expectancy went up. And there is correspondigly higher prevalence of botulism and food poisoning in these cultures due to eating dangerous raw meat. Dried meats are not raw meats because the meat is no longer in its raw form. Raw does not mean subject to heat, it means subject to change in the structure of the meat by any process - curing is such a process too, so is subject to heat. And if you eat raw fish from the Mekong in Thailand, you will die of liver cancer caused by liver flukes. So it depends on type of fish. Yet, cooking every type of fish will ensure that you will never get liver cancer from liver flukes. Proof that cooking is safer than this raw diet nonsense. Pyschosomatic process. You believe in something, so you are experiencing the placebo effect. 'feeling health benefit' from eating something is the biggest load of nonsense there is. Prove to us that Omega 3 is heat sensetive.
  22. Legendary actor Sridevi passes away

    Sounds like Enquirer type gossip. Wouldn't be surprised if she actually had like 4-5 surgeries but got rag-paper gossiped like hollywood celebrities sometimes do. Thicker blood reduces oxygen supply to heart enough for her to die - i smell BS. Blood thick enough to stop pulmonary artery should be like the carpet-bombing version of strokes everywhere in the body , but hey i am not a doctor. Just doesn't sound right and sounds like something 'star-tracker' reporters (papparazi types) would like to cash in on at this time.
  23. Legendary actor Sridevi passes away

    err, all the old black and white bollywood stars were hot - especially the women. Ofcourse we today don't consider the 'Ashok Kumar' types to be hot masculine men, but if you ever talked to a grandma,they'd tell you how much hotter Ashok Kumar or Dileep Kumar were compared to hrithik Roshan 'who looks lumpy and not the right mix of well groomed, strong physique and sophistication'. And yes, while we'd all like to judge an actor by their skill or a sportsmen by their skill, reality is, looks matter in acting and fitness matters in sports..
  24. Legendary actor Sridevi passes away

    Sure. The pressure to look attractive is high in any industry where your main marketing commodity is your looks. Whether its being a movie star, fashion model or even a prostitute, it doesn't matter. Just like how the pressure to be 'extremely smart' is very high in an industry where your main marketing commodity is your brain....or pressure to be extremely fit is very high in an industry where the main marketing commodity is the fitness of an individual. Comes with the territory.
  25. Legendary actor Sridevi passes away

    How do you know that these women used a LOT of plastic surgery and are not naturally beautiful/ageing gracefully ? Just because there is a 50 year old lady who looks better than most 30 year old girls doesn't mean she is plastic surgery up the ying-yang.

Guest, sign in to access all features.