Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members L2
  • Content count

    7,316
  • Runs

    107,200 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    83d 15h 8m 39s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. false. India has legal sovereign right claim to J&K. Even the UN agrees that for any movement in Kashmir's fate, India's legal sovereign rights must return to de-facto Indian control first. Israel on the other hand, has zero legal claim in Palestine, neither did it officially annex it via war. It just showed up and started to build stuff on land that they don't claim to own, over protests of those who do claim to own it. That is why the occupation zones in Palestine are not sovereign Israeli lands by Israel's own jurisdiction.
  2. Indeed. Israel is in the wrong here. So are the Palestinians. The Israel-Palestine paradigm should be a lesson to every war-hawk: As Brennus famously said, 'Vae, Victus!' (Woo to the defeated). Do not start a war that is unwinnable and if the enemy doesn't just win but crushes you, this is what will follow.
  3. I have presented the criteria for a scientific paper a long time ago and i have presented such: needs its research, needs to be peer reviewed, needs its dataset. Raw milk cheese is made from raw milk, where the microbes survive. Ergo, unsafe. BS. I have already presented evidence that raw milk and raw milk cheese (which my article also includes) are unsafe food. Scientific fact has already been provided, showing raw milk is unsafe. As i said and you ignored - we have removed raw milk borne tuberculosis by not consuming it. TB occurs naturally in a cow. Its not a matter of a sick cow passing the germs. The sound, scientific proof has already been provided. Zoonotic diseases. Elimination of raw milk borne TB by forcing pasteurization. is the decisive evidence. Already presented. We may not have any cases yet, because raw milk fad diet is insignificant and new- but if it does spread, raw milk borne TB will also make a comeback. One cannot prevent the transmission of zoonotic diseases if raw meat & animal products are consumed or handled.
  4. See what you are doing ? facts are presented, but like a religious person, you are trying to read into it too much. I can tell you have not read the article, because the article mentions what its controls are. So what ? You are yet to present evidence of your santiation claim. I have specifically stated a study that shows raw milk borne diseases despite the farm passing sanitation standards. Your turn to validate your claim that its a sanitation issue and can be solved. It is a bigger number than what is from pasteurized milk. Ergo, raw milk is unsafe. It is an insignificant number because raw milk is insignificant part of the diet of people who consume it (they only consume raw milk at home, not in everything milk-based they eat via restaurants, who dont buy raw milk) and because they are less than 4% of US population. Numbers will become a lot more significant once industrial quantities of raw milk are consumed, therefore, this unsafe, hazardous practice must be stopped before more morons jump on the bandwagon under 'more nutrients but i will ignore the pathogenic dangers' ideology. You are talking out of your ar$e. Pathogenic contamination comes from contact and contact is fluidic. A cow pissing in its stall is not going to contaminate the milk from ITS udders. But over time, without cleanup, its going to contamnate OTHER cows as they walk in and out of the stalls, which in turn is going to spread the contamination. Its going to get on the legs first...then when a cow repeatedly sits down, its going to get on the udders. it may even get INSIDE the udders, not just on the surface because thats how pathogenic contamination works. Prove this claim. I have already proven that even with proper sanitation measures prescribed by the government, raw milk is still found with these dseases. False. Your judgement is irrelevant. The authors of the scientific paper point out that it is significant and we need to understand costs of raw milk contamination. Especially when people who consume raw milk can pass the diseases to those who do not by contact, so maybe we should charge the morons who want to undertake risky behaviour a higher medical premium. None of those are facts. Those are just empty claims from a newspaper. Show us the actual study. And nowhere in the study does it say that all asthma is created due to milk - which you religiously claimed earlier - linking 30% of Indian population with asthma, to pasteurized milk. Sure. We also show evidence of significant people being hospitalized with potentially deadly illnesses. Rather have allergies to many than deadly illnesses to some. Show us that it is actually caused by cooked meat outside of any other external factors. That some foods contain carcinogens, is not a conclusion that 'this food causes cancer'. Because as i have repeatedly said, cooked meat is optimal nutrition for humans in terms of proteins.
  5. Again, religious nonsense being peddled as fact. Facts clearly show that raw milk & raw milk cheese are unsafe. Scientific article already provided. This is politics, not scientific research paper. Scientific research paper has been provided. It shows raw milk is unsafe. Govt caving in to fanatics like yourself who want to inflict self-harm with half-baked knowledge, overruling experts in the field with some crazy conspiracy theory nonsense, does not change the scietific fact that raw milk is dangerous. Again i will post form the said article that you conviniently ignored: In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds.
  6. Again, your religious belief is coming to the fore. The study cited is NOT from one farm alone. Show us what these so-called 'government controlled farms' are and how their microbial load is lesser. Washing udder is NOT the same as washing urine off the stall or completely sanitizing a cow in the process of crapping itself while milked. Which is why, pasteurization is SAFER. False. Again, you make nonsense up. The article CLEARLY states that the farm complied with health standards. Ie, health standards do not protect against infections in the milk, as it only monitors somatic cells in the milk. Because human error leading to raw milk being unsafe can be mitigated by pasteurization. So its SAFER. Sure. But pasteurization makes it safer. i have proved this. Stop your religious denial of the facts. Proof please. show us the number of asthma victims suffering asthma due to pasteurized milk. Scientific data to back up your claim please. Show us evidence that the deaths are caused directly by cooked meat. The diet that i propose, is scientifically safer. Evidence has been provided.
  7. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/51/12/1418/316955 Quote: "The authors state, “Notably, contamination occurred despite acceptable milking and sanitation procedures, according to regulatory standards” [6, p 1415]. " These risks are well documented and include numerous foodborne disease outbreaks and illnesses linked to consumption of contaminated raw milk or products made from raw milk [4, 5]. LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz [4] reviewed the hazards associated with raw milk consumption and pointed out that in the 21st century dairy products are responsible for <1% of reported foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States. In contrast, milkborne outbreaks comprised 25% of all disease outbreaks due to contaminated food and water in the early 1900s. The vast reduction in milk-related illnesses during this period is attributed to the implementation of pasteurization as a processing step and improved sanitation and refrigeration throughout the production chain. In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds. There you go- proof that raw meat & animal products are sources of zoonotic diseases from us. Many major killers of humanity in terms of diseases: plague, smallpox, chickenpox, rubella, tuberculosis, etc. made the jump from species that otherwise benefit from these microbes/virus( symbiosis), due to improper handling of meat, milk and meat-products. As i keep saying and some people keep ignoring living in their fad-diet 'la-la land' - uncured/uncooked meat is a severe health hazard to the whole human population. Mostly because there is no such thing as perfectly regulated sanitized interaction with animals ( they are animals. They sweat, take a crap, piss, etc. whenever they want. No farmer is obligated to fully sanitize the station once a cow takes a piss whilst being milked and nobody does. ) And even if there is, it still doesn't do anything for the zoonotic disease risk- where all it takes is just a few people to start an epidemic. We also see evidence of these raw foods borne illnesses being passed on to people who don't eat raw meat & animal products, who wouldn't get it any other way, except due to irresponsibility of a raw consumer of such items, via direct contact. These raw meat/milk fad diets are dangerous to humaity. 10 million Americans consuming it has lead to 700 hospitalizations . 300 million equates to 21,000 more sick people at the very minimum. Globally, this would represent nearly half a million more hospitalizations.
  8. Because you do. You have a religious-like pre-concieved notion of what it entails, refuse to see scientific criticism of it and try and twist facts to justify your position. Aka, classical religious behaviour. Example: you found a study that shows pasteurized milk can cause allergic asthma. So you went on record here to state that 30% of Indians suffer from Asthma and linked ALL of it to pasteurized milk. Classic religious dishonesty on display here. You have not demonstrated any such facts that show raw meat & animal products are safer than cooked & pasteurized ones. You on the other hand, have refused to open your eyes and accept that its unsafe, despite me presenting actual scientific proof of it. Yes, it does jack sh*t to microbes occuring naturally in said animal. All pox viruses originate from bovines. Cow pox, smallpox, chicken pox - all bovine-related illnesses, because bovines are natural reservoirs to these viruses. It occurs NATURALLY in them. do you understand what symbiosis means ? these are basic, high-school biology stuff buddy. I will present said stuff also shortly. As you can see, i dont deal in nonsense propaganda BS like you do, but actual scientific papers which presents its data and analysis. You are YET to concede to the scientific study that shows raw milk = more hospitalizations. Show us evidence that your raw milk source has less listeria, e-coli etc. than pre-pateurized milk from regular milk farms. And nowhere does it say that the standards prescribed equates to just as low a microbial content as pateurized milk. Its got nothing to do with sanitation. That is your assumption of the issue. And even if it is to do with sanitation, you are yet to show evidence that such sanitation issues can be eliminated in the first place. I can post you articles that detail day-to-day happenings of milk farms. Cows sometimes crap themselves when being milked. The milker can fall off. Etc. Show to us that your santiatary plants follow perfect sanitation protocol. Because governments do not agree that it is safer. I have already presented evidence of my government & medical body stating it is unsafe. You invented the sanitation issue. Nowhere in my article does it say that the cause is below-standard sanitation process. Nowhere in the article it says that the survey of farms following sanitation protocol and those failing at it are any different. You are just being religious about it, sorry. Evidence presented. Raw milk is unsafe. Period. Already provided. Prove to us that the sanitation of is the issue and the issue can be remedied via sanitation. My article makes no such recommendtion or claim that the farm practices are unsanitary or below prescribed standard. And its still less than 4% of US and 0.01% of Humanity. Its a nothing- number. Which is 22 more than pasteurized milk. Therefore, pasteurized milk is safer. As i originally claimed. Irrelevant. You are making a false analogy again, due to your religious belief in raw foods. Show us an article that claims all causes of cancer is food. Only then can you make comparison between hospitalization due to raw milk and hundreds of thousands dying from cancer. It is raw milk. You keep making up nonsense about sanitation does not make it so. Sanitation is not perfect unless you are talking about a complete climate-controlled microchip manufacturing facility. Waiting evidence from you that 'sanitary raw milk farms' have less presence of listeria, e-coli, etc. in their milk than pre-pasteurized milk from regular farms. Till you present said claims, your sanitation red-herring is summarily dismissed as obfuscation. In my experience from visiting farms, there is no such thing as a completely sanitary farm. The bolded, italicized part is the ONLY honest thing you've said in this whole thread. You are yet to present to us the # of cases of asthma caused by pasteurized milk as opposed to other causes (genetic, air quality, smoking, work hazards, etc), or how much cancer deaths are caused DIRECTLY by food. So as far as i am concerned, i am going to follow what the medical professional say - raw meat & milk are dangerous. So what ? they didn't die due to modern medicine. 100 years ago, most of them would be dead. Cooked meat has less infectious contaminants in them. Most of humanity has eaten cooked meat from time immemorial. I'd rather have more toxins caused by cooking - which ever so slightly increases my risk to cancer- which can also be neutralized by a balanaced diet of free-radical neutralizers and anti-oxidants, than eat raw milk or meat, which is the equivalent of eating a nice, healthy green salad laced with ebola. All from over-consumption of meat and all of these are based on overconsuming western diets. Asian diets are far more healthy when it comes to meat.
  9. The records of the Greeks are far more accurate, because they actually describe the battle, unlike Ferdowsi. Their writing is also a lot closer to the event than Firdowsi as well. The basic gist is this - Porus shadows Alexander's movements to prevent a crossing---> Alexander leaves part of his army in his camp by the riverside, instructing them to 'pretend like they are about to cross' to pin Porus's forces across the river and headed up-stream for 4-5kms with a part of his army, to cross. Then in the night he crossed. When Porus realized what has happened, he sent his entire cavalry, commanded by his son, to intercept Alex. Alexander's elite companion cavalry, along with scythian (shaka) horse archer support, utterly annihilated Porus's son. Then it started to rain pretty hard as Alexander closed in. Indians at that time used body-length long bow,that they'd anchor in the ground to fire. Due to rain and mud, the chariots of Porus and his archers were completely ineffective. When Alexander makes contact with Porus, he closes the gap pretty fast, because his prime objective was to make sure Porus's 150 odd elephants were crammed by the river-side and had no space to manuever. This he accomplishes. While macedonian Phalanx carve through Indian infantry like knife through butter, it was tough going against the war elephants - who fought all day long and just 150 of them inflicted the bulk of casualies on Alex's forces, where the elephant cavalry alone killed over a 1000 macedonians. After Porus surrenders, Alexander learns that the 'kings of Praesii and Gangaridai' ( Kashi and Ganga-Hridaya- most likely Magadh or bengal) were marching and were in the process of crossing the Ganges close to Moradabad, with a force totalling nearly 200,000 forces,of which, 10,000 were war elephant. Diodorus directly states that 'upon hearing of such a large host, especially of the famed Indian war elephant and after having struggled so mightily against only 150, the courage of the Macedonians- wilted at long last and they mutined, asking to go home'.
  10. Firdowsi's Shahnameh is not reliable - it has way too many errors in it. And it was also written over a thousand years later. Porus was crushed by Alexander pretty easily.
  11. This is a nonsensical argument. Ofcourse, feeding our food top quality food will raise its price. Same is applicable to animals. Transferring ALL factory-farmed cows into pastures will raise the costs significantly too since it massively increases land usage. It also is not sustainable, since we do not have enough pastures in the world to pasture 4-5 billion cows. And creating said pasture land will cause far more ecological damage (through clear-cutting forests) than increasing freehold fish farms. Again, fish farms. Read up on the sustainability of them. https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/calcium-vitamin-d-foods Plenty of calcium in spinach, okra, soy beans, collard greens - plenty of calcium options exist. 10 million is an insignificant number to 300 million. its less than 4 percent. And those are 760 illnesses and 22 hospitalizations MORE than those who drink pasteurized milk. Thus proving the point that pasteurized milk is safer. And stop with your religious dishonesty re: pitfalls of cooked meat. The article you cited, says that eating cooked meat CAN cause asthma in people. It also states that the prevalence itself of asthma or allergic complications, are a statistical insignificance. Nowhere does it say that eating cooked meat causes asthma. See what you did, by trying to connect 30% of Indians suffer from asthma = due to cooked meat causing allergic reaction ? That is blatant, dishonesty from your fad-diet religion types. You do have a religion- admit it- its fad diet. And same sources lead to greater disease rate as proven by the study. Hogwash nonsense. Prove to us that such sanitary practices actually exist and show us your scientific paper of similar quality that shows raw milk is safe. Same for you. You are simply assuming that something allowed = scientifically safe. No proof of that is presented from you. Prove to us that these sanitation risks do not exist in your so-called 'perfect dairy farms'. Learn to read please. I said those societies you cited, their own citizens, consume raw meat in less than 5% of THEIR meat diet. Not that 5% eat raw meat as a staple. Do you understand what the word 'staple' means ? It means what you eat regularly. Not once a week or twice a month. I eat beef carpaccio once a month or so, but its ridiculous to consider me a raw meat eater, given that 99% of my meat consumption, by mass, is cooked meat. Same goes for Koreans, Japanese, Germans, etc. ONLY Masai and Inuits (who had no option) eat more than 5% of an individual's diet in raw meat. No proof = religious belief. You are yet to prove that Chinese men are short because of lack of milk or were shorter than their European counterparts 200 or more years ago. It is no mystery. Better balanced diet than settled societies have caused greater height in virtually all pre-farming societies. LOL. What BS nonsense. Llamas exist in SOUTH America. Not in North America. The Natives that i am talking about are the natives of US-Canadian eastern sea-board. Who had no Llamas or Bison (which was present over a thousand kms west in the mississippi plains and occupied by different tribes. It does not have to be meat either. Most Greeks and Persian description of Indians in history are of tall,lanky people and mostly vegetarian. Height is a matter of balanced, nutritious diet. Not just meat or milk. Physique has a lot of components going into it, not just nutrition either. Inuits are short, stocky people because short, stocky people conserve heat better than tall or skinny people. These 'scores' mean nothing, bud. Not scientific benchmark. Yep. 10 million out of 300 million is less than 4%. Which is a statistical insignificance. Stop talking like a religious nutter. I just proved to you, via scientific paper, which cites its data, its charts, its tables and is peer reviewed, that raw milk is more dangerous than pasteurized milk. Go take your religion elsewhere, as you are acting JUST like a religious fanatic, who refuses to accept scientific fact. Its nothing strange, as everything is a tradeoff. I'd rather have allergies and small risk of cancer, than small risk of dying or hospitalization due to eating unsafe food. The conclusion is, raw milk is less safe than pasteurized milk. Stop trying to refute the paper by your own flawed religious opinion on the topic. The study i presented compares microbial load in raw milk vs pasteurized milk and shows that pasteurized milk is safer. Game, set and match, right there.
  12. @Alam_dar You ran away from this peer-reviwed, scientific paper that PROVES that raw milk is 800 times more unsafe than pasteurized milk and eaters of raw-meat fad-diets get sick from their food far more than people following a regular diet. This is a proper scientific paper - the data-set, the analysis, everything is presented. Find me an article of similar quality to refute it, not some random write-up from a random internet site. And kindly dont waste my time trying to challenge said article with your limited knowledge - you keep wilfully ignoring the zoonotic diseases threat to humanity from raw meat consumption and try to pass it off as 'proper sanitation will take care of it' nonsense, proving that you have ZERO idea on how diseases have come to be in humanity in the first place.
  13. Again, dont assume. Phytoplankton and zooplankton can be grown in industrial scale via mass cultures. which in turn can be fortified into the Salmon food the same way we fortify our milk. Salmon is not the only fish with omega-3. Hilsa(Eelish) has plenty. There is such a thing called overgrazing, which affects a lot of non-industrialized nations due to their high cattle population. The only reason milk is affordable is because the same milk cow is used for beef when she gets old. It doesn't change the fact that cattle industry is a huge contributor to global warming and the world will be far better off if people massively reduced their milk and beef consumption. Nonsense. Fish farming has far greater potential for growth than animal farming. This is because thanks to the 3d farming of fish, a single square km can have far greater density of weight than even a cattle farm (where the farming practice is 2d, as you cant stack cows on top of each other on the same patch of land. Fish- you can layer them based on their depth of inhabitation. Because of the legal terms involved. In my country, vaccines are a personal responsibility. I cannot sue anyone if i get measles because i didn't take a vaccine. Food is a seller's liability. Even if i consent to drinking unsafe (raw) milk, i can still sue the distributor if i get sick. You are simply making a false equivalency between legal rights of the person and what is scientific fact. I already posted a scientific article- an actual research paper- that shows raw milk is 800 times more unsafe than pasteurized milk. You chose to ignore it, because it went against your religion. They are allowing it, because the have a different set of precedences and legal language around rights of the individual. In those countries vaccination is mandatory but risky food usage is not. I already did. I provided a peer-reviewed scientific article in my last post (the one you chose to ignore) that demonstrates that raw milk has a 800% greater risk of spreading disease than pasteurized milk. Because sanitization does jack $hit to eliminate microbes that occur NATURALLY in the said animal. No amount of sanitzation will rid a cow of pox virus. It occurs naturally in them, the same way no amount of healthy living will eliminate some of the gut bacterias that live in symbiosis with you naturally. None of the cultures you mentioned - except the Inuit (who had no choice of veggies) and Masai (a statitical anomaly) consume raw meat in any significant quantity. Raw meat makes up less than 5% of the non-veg diet of Germans, Japanese, Koreans, etc. by mass, since none of the dishes you named are daily consumption dishes or even a primary consumption dish. As for proof- as i said, every single neolithic, paleolithic and chalcolithic human habitation site that shows meat consumption also shows heat treatment on the bones, ie cooking of some sort. Even today, the vast majority of tribal populations cook their meat than eat them raw. False. A piece of beef carpaccio here, 10 pieces of sushi every other week, etc. does not make a significant consumption statistic. none of the cultures you mentioned except the inuit and the masai eat raw meat as a STAPLE. Which has not existed for overwhelming majority of humanity in any significant volume. Sticking a piece of beef carpaccio once a month into my face does not make me a regular eater of raw meat. Yes. Lime. Calcium oxide. Which leeches into the egg via calcium transfer and which (CaO) is a great antiseptic. Ie, not raw rotten eggs but treated ones. Prove to us that Chinese are shorter in stature than europeans or Indians 200 years ago. You also ignored the fact (which i can easily prove by quoting first hand sources) that say Native Americans were percieved as taller, more muscular and in significantly greater fitness than Europeans when colonials arrived, yet the Natives did not consume milk or eat raw meat - the ones who the Europeans describe as such (Huron, Iroquois, etc) did not have access to bison either. It is a fad diet because: 1. It is followed by a statistically insignificant number of people 2. It is unscientific and has religious slant to it - ignoring evidence to the contrary, twisting facts to support the pre-concieved notions, etc. 3. It is unsafe. Yes, allergies are bad. I'd prefer my kid not having any allergies, any illnesses, any disability ever. But if the choice is between a 2-3% risk of contracting allergic asthma and 2-3 % chance of contracting tuberculosis, lysteria, etc. I would easily go for the allergy option. Nope. Optimal nutrient is present in cooked meat. Nutrition is not about what your body absorbs and processes, its also what your body has to fight because of your food. This is why cooked meat is optimal nutrition - it offers slightly lesser nutritional content than raw meat but significantly safer to consume. Sanitization has nothing to do with naturally occuring microbes in a given species. No amount of sanitary practices will get rid of pox viruses that occur naturally in a cow. Only cooking them (or irradiating them -which has the same effect as cooking and destroys enzymes) is the only way to get rid of them. False. i already provided a scientific peer reviewed article that proves raw milk is 800 times more dangerous to consume than pasteurized milk. Optimal diet is not the risky diet. Yep. So are the bad bacteria. Which is why raw meat eaters have gotten sicker than cooked meat eaters as my peer reviewed paper proves. Wait...you wanna eat raw rice ? LOL. You are clearly as bad as a religious fanatic to propose eating raw rice, as it will give you the worst possible gut-ache you can think of. We cannot process raw rice. Stop this religious nonsense. Everyone had 100+ year old people amongst them, Inuits are no special in this regard. What we know for a fact, is Inuit life expectancy is lower than most other folks and have been so as long as we've been in contact with them. Which is true for all socities. We can all find the 1-2% 100+ year old people in any population. Inuits are no special. Cured meat destroys the bateria - good and bad - via the chemical processes of curing it. I am afraid you dont know basic chemistry to argue that cured meat is chemically the same product as raw meat. False. I live in north america, every single native i've met who eats pemmican swears by the berries in them. Salt is present in the fats that they use to sterilize the raw meat. Encasing raw meat in fat and leaving it for long periods of time is a method of salt treatment. Berries are high in sugar. a 2-3% sugar load by mass, is a LOT of sugar. If you put 2-3% by mass the same sugar in your cup of coffee, it would be the equivalent of pouring 5-6 spoonfuls of sugar into it. We are also in the best health we've ever been, thanks to people not following fad-diets like you are. It is because far more people make it to 70+ now than ever before. if only 4% of people make it to 70+ (Inuits for eg), their prevalence of these diseases would be far lesser, as a matter of statistics, than if 30% of the population entered the 70+ age zone like modern industrial societies do. Sorry, i dont read opinion pieces. I read scientific studies. I already presented one. You ran away.
  14. 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.
  15. Industrial farming has scale of economy. 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. 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. 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. Google it. Frying fish destroys anywhere between 40-70% of omega-3s, when marinated with olive oil, it reduces it to <30%. If its possible to produce enough milk for human population of India, it definitely is possible to produce fish for us too. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. See above. 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. False. 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. 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. 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. 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. And people were dying a lot more from food borne contagion before safter standards were promoted. 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. It is still a cured meat. the meat is dried for days, then prepared with berries in most cases, adding sugar. Berries. Sugar. 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.
  16. Israel is a different story because Palestine is not theirs and as such, they are not dealing with their own citizens. Punjab insurgey did not involve a genocide of the Punjabis. We were not killing Punjabis left, right and center, except for a 1 week-ish period in a few specific cities immediately after IG's death. Sure. But these people are YOUR CITIZENS. Ergo, they have exactly the same rights as you. Individual culpability is required. This is why Russia, China, etc. are not exactly places where people look forward to going or living there. No, it is a basic failure of YOU to understand that a constitutional democracy with inalienable citizen rights cannot, legally justify profiling action against its citizens meted with violent force. What you sacrifice, in terms of social rights are not easy to get back.
  17. Because we believe that public space and government space should not consider religion or religious requirements of the people. There are more than 1 religions in practically every country. Fact. There are also atheists in practically every country. Also a fact. Job of the government : to provide security, conditions for economic prosperity and protection of rights for all citizens. How the heck is the government supposed to do this, if they start creating prayer hall, masjid this, temple that or start giving dietary, lifestyle consessions ?! They will ALWAYS make the playing field unequal for some citizens, by default, if they dont prescribe to said ' fast/payer routine. This is basic governing principle. You believe in something about how to live your life, based on a book someone wrote ? Awesome. All the power to you. Must be fun with all the time you free up for not trying to think for yourself. Cool. And it doesnt matter if people who agree with your 'version' are 1% or 99% or 99.999%. Keep it out of public space. Which is there to accomodate an equal environment for ALL people.
  18. Muloghonto

    22 years old tourist killed in Kashmir by stone pelters

    The whole Pashtuns = Israelites rely on finding common-sounding nouns in their languages. The whole ' Yousuf = Joseph, Peshawar = Pech Habor' is complete bunk. Its not surprising that pashtuns, after being genocided by the Saffarids and Samanids, converted to islam and then started associating themselves with the same biblical tribal nomenclature that Arabs & Jews subscribe to. Yet, prior to the Islamization of the Pashtuns, the names of the Afghan available, show zero so-called links to Hebrew nomenclature.
  19. 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. 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. Start eating fish. Simple. 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. Eating raw meat and animal products *IS* dangerous. Scientifically proven. 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. 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. Their tests show no allergy related asthma. not that they have no allergies. 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. There is no such thing as clean raw milk. Raw milk = dangerous. False. Healthwise cooked food is to raw food what a McDonalds burger is to a salad covered in Ebola. The risk of disease from cooked food is a far lesser one than risk of disease from infectious microbes in raw meat products. It is also much safer to eat vegetables than raw meat. And they averaged 40 years or so as life expectancy, before modern diet and medicine raised that number significantly. 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. Nope. It isn't. And Germany or France are not the only modern civilized country in the world either. 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. 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. 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. 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.
  20. Muloghonto

    22 years old tourist killed in Kashmir by stone pelters

    thats more or less nonsense. Simple word similarities mean nothing, really, especially when it comes to nouns(ie, names). there is only so much sound a human voice can make and naming things share similar sounds (but mean very different things). The jewish link to Pashtuns is more or less, bunk. Pashtuns are descendants of the Hepthalites mostly, mixed with Paratas.
  21. Salmon is just an example. Any oily fish will do. Eelish is an option for India. 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. 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. Not always. Bengalis usually lightly fry the fish with skin intact. Frying fish does not destroy all omega-3. Covering the fish in olive oil and then cooking it protects the omega-3s. 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. Fish farms. 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. 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. Does NOT change the fact that zoonotic microbes will make the jump to us via raw meats and is more dangerous. Saying we should eat safe, cooked food is not equivalent to saying we should eat junk food or fast food. 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. 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. Most likely. Which is why they also died more frequently due to food-borne illnesses. Fish farms are a viable option.
  22. Fish has omega-3 and it remains even via cooking (eg: cooked salmon). Milk is *not* essential to human diet actually. 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. 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. 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. And till 19th century a lot more europeans were dying from food borne illnesses too. Very few people in India drink raw milk. 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.
  23. Muloghonto

    The Myth of Thousand Years Rule

    yes, that is true. While Romans for example, were not overtly religious - definitely not fanatical like Islamists, they did believe that Mars (their God of war) was kind to them and their city, if they met their enemies face2face and, to quote Cicero ' walked in their blood, spilled in combat, under the eyes of Mars himself'.
  24. Muloghonto

    The Myth of Thousand Years Rule

    Rise of Sikhs have more to do with the attrocities they suffered and charismatic leadership they united under, than religion itself. if religion is actually a performance enhancer, can you explain to me then, why is it that through ancient times till now, professional soldiers ALWAYS outperform an army of fanatics, given that their skills and leadership abilities are more or less the same ?
  25. Muloghonto

    The Myth of Thousand Years Rule

    Central Asia was buddhist only in their settlements. Ie, in the few cities in central Asia, buddhism flourished. However, for the vast majority of the region - which is mostly steppe land and desert - amongst the nomads, shamanism & sun-worship were the dominant ideologies. Buddhism in central Asia wasn't destroyed by the muslims. it was destroyed by the Hepthalites - the ancestors of the Abdalis, who were also known as 'white huns' ( safed huna) in our literature.

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×