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

[beetle]

On 5/8/2018 at 2:18 AM, Alam_dar said:

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.

One can't have it all.

The benefits far outweigh the harms.

These pathogens can be far more harmful. So the general  non allergic population consuming pasteurized milk makes far more sense.

 

People who are allergic should have the option of trying non  pasteurized milk after looking at the pros and  cons and check it out.Most mild allegies can be managed with antiallergins .

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by beetle

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, beetle said:

One can't have it all.

The benefits far outweigh the harms.

These pathogens can be far more harmful. So the general  non allergic population consuming pasteurized milk makes far more sense.

 

People who are allergic should have the option of trying non  pasteurized milk after looking at the pros and  cons and check it out.Most mild allegies can be managed with antiallergins .

Agreed fully. 

 

(1)  People with allergies could try to find out sanitized (to avoid excessive pathogens), and high quality feed farm (so that more Omega-3 to fight against allergies). 

The process was something like that:

* First make kefir out of raw milk, which has been reported to be far more digestible while perhaps the good bacterias take the control. 

* Start with 1 tablespoon, and if it suits then gradually increase the quantity. 

* If it is not digested, or shows any signs of problems, then stop drinking milk. 

 

(2) Even the people without allergies, they also have to try to find the source of high quality of milk for getting better omega-3

 

(3) While even the people without allergies are also at risk that at some point they could also suffer from the allergies due to pasteurized milk, therefore, they could also make a Test if they could digest the raw milk or not, by consuming raw milk Kefir first and that too starting with one tablespoon. 

If raw milk agrees with them, then it is great news for them for their health.

 

(4) Now the Most Safest way of consuming benefits of Raw:

If one is still not sure about raw milk, then one could also reap the benefits by using the "Raw Milk Cheese" and the "Raw milk Butter". 

Both of them are so much safe to consume that they are allowed to be sold openly in every discounter in Europe, just like any pasteurized cheese and pasteurized butter. 

 

This way one could get all the benefits of raw, and at the same time avoid the allergies. In fact taking omega-3 through raw cheese/butter willl help them to fight against their previous allergies through pasteurized milk. 

 

(5) The most important part is this to make people aware of it. 

People don't know what is 100% grass fed milk and what is it's benefits over grain fed milk. It is not only omega-3 in grass fed milk, but grains are fully unnatural to the cow and then farmers have to give antibiotics to the cows so that they could stay alive. 

People should tell the farmers more and more to produce high quality milk and also to use better sanitization. 

 

Also people should be made aware of their sufferings (allergies) and what role pasteurized milk could play in it, and what are the alternatives available to them. 

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

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. 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

Salmon is not the only fish with omega-3. Hilsa(Eelish) has plenty. 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

Grass is already available on the planet earth.

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. 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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

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. 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

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. 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

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. 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

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. 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

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. 

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. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

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. 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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

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. 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

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. 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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.

//

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. 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

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. 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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).

//

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

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

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. 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

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. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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). 

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. 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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

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. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

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. 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

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. 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

Which is true for all socities. We can all find the 1-2% 100+ year old people in any population. Inuits are no special. 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

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. 

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. 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

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. 

False. I live in north america, every single native i've met who eats pemmican swears by the berries in them. 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

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. 

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. 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

 

(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. 

 

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. 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

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

We are also in the best health we've ever been, thanks to people not following fad-diets like you are.

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

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.

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. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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?

 

 

Sorry, i dont read opinion pieces. I read scientific studies. I already presented one. You ran away. 

 

[Muloghonto]

21 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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

 

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.

 

[asterix]

to Mulo & Alam being unperturbed and unhindered by all these useless cricket related discussions and carrying on posting massive posts.... :p

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

Problem remains there that such feed in the farms is going to cost a lot of money. Much much more money than the cheap alternative of soy. But even using soy is not able to bring the price of Salmon to that level where average Indian family could afford to eat it every day like milk. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Salmon is not the only fish with omega-3. Hilsa(Eelish) has plenty. 

Hilsa is not sustainable if whole Indian population has to feed the fish every day. 

 

Calcium:
Another important question is about Calcium and milk is the most important source of it. 

100 grams of Salmon has only 58 mg of calcium (link), which is only 6% of daily recommended quantity. This means, one has to eat 1.3 kg of Salmon daily to get the required calcium. 

 

In India, there are not so many substitutes available for calcium through diet, if one does not drinks milk. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 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. 

Your above mentioned study says:

 

(1) 3.2% population of US drinks raw milk. Population of US is 326 million, which means 10 million of US citizens are consuming raw milk. 

 

(2) According to your own mentioned study, from these 10 million consumers there are only 760 illnesses/year and only 22 hospitalizations/year, but no deaths. 

These figures themselves prove that you were exaggerating the dangers heavily. Off course this is not in significant numbers. While on pasteurized milk, there are 30% people in the Indian cities suffering from asthma and allergies which is much more huge numbers. And MOST ASTHMA DEATHS IN WORLD OCCUR IN INDIA: WHO

 

(3) No wonder that US government then allowed the sale of raw milk from the sanitized and refrigeration controlled sources. 

 

(4) Please also remember that these 10 million raw milk consumers in US are not getting the raw milk from these clean sources, but they are using the normal farmed milk which is not even present in the control list of US authorities recommended sources. 

Therefore, that study will matter which could prove the illnesses from these government authorized raw milk sellers. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

You have no proofs other than your conjecture. 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

I don't know why are you saying this. 

Your mentioned study says that these cases in America appeared mainly due to:

(1) E. Coli. 

But this Escherichia coli lives in the intestine and could not come directly in the milk. Their path is through feces of live stock and then contamination of milk due to the poor sanitization. 

Link: Sources of E. coli Infection

 

(2) And 2nd biggest reason of illness is Salmonella.

Again this is a sanitization problem while they contaminate through animal feces. 

//

Salmonella food poisoning - Foodborne Illness

www.foodborneillness.com/salmonella_food_poisoning/
Salmonella infection usually occurs when a person eats food contaminated with the feces of animals or humans carrying the bacteria.

//

 

(3) And the 3rd biggest reason of illness through raw milk in America was L. monocytogenes:

But again this is environmental issue and related to sanitization. 

//

L. monocytogenes has been isolated from different species and from soil, plants, mud, pasture, waste water and streams. ... In cases of L. monocytogenes contamination of milk, the most likely source of the listeria is from the environment post-milking.Jul 6, 2012

A case of bovine raw milk contamination with Listeria monocytogenes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3526472/

//

 

(4) And the fourth and last one is Campylobacter

Again this one too is related to sanitization as it also contaminates through the feces.

//

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870394/

//

 

Conclusion:

All the major factors which caused the illnesses in US, they were related to the sanitization problems. 

No wonder why US, UK and Germany allowed the consumption of raw milk by putting the conditions of sanitization and refrigeration. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

Nothing changes as 5% also makes millions of people consuming raw meat and raw fish. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Prove to us that Chinese are shorter in stature than europeans or Indians 200 years ago.

It is not needed to be proved as the scientific study is more than enough to prove that all the high quantity of milk consuming nations excel the others. And this study is proving that proteins in milk are much more essential than of the meat. 

 

Please don't ignore the main issue here and I would ask you to deny this scientific study directly. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

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 seems that there is evidence that  Native Americans were also drinking some raw milk from LAMAs:

//

http://www.dairymoos.com/milk-in-pre-columbian-america/

Milk in Pre-Columbian America

Many people assume that milk drinking is a product of Western culture, but there is evidence that pre-Columbian cultures in America were drinking milk of Lamas. 

//

 

Any how, Native Indians didn't have any dairy products and it is a mystery how they got such big stature. 

 

It could not only the meat which made them huge, while Inuits used much more meat than the Native Indians, but still they were not tall. 

 

Similarly, this could not deny the huge scientific study, which was done in the 192 countries of the world, and which proved milk has a role in the height of the humans. 

 

The Proteins of meat are no where near to the milk when it comes to the completeness and high quality of proteins. 

Beef scores only 94 in completeness of Protein (link).

While raw milk scores 139 in completeness (link).

This is a huge difference which makes milk proteins much more valuable. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

It is a fad diet because:

1. It is followed by a statistically insignificant number of people

10 million consumers alone in US is insignificant numbers for you? 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

2. It is unscientific and has religious slant to it - ignoring evidence to the contrary, twisting facts to support the pre-concieved notions, etc.

All the scientific proofs provided above along with Governments allowing it's sale while they considered it safe enough after the sanitization which is the original cause of contamination with bad bacteria. 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

Strange this optimal diet of yours causing all types of allergies and cancers in humans due to the poisons caused during cooking, but you still claim them to be optimal. 

 

[Brainfade]

I went ahead the read one of the original papers that was cited in the Guardian article. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26792208

The bottom-line interpretation from the data is that overall fat content of the milk (which correlates to high omega 3 PUFA levels) has the most  robust association with lower risk of asthma.  Since farm milk is always high-fat, it makes sense that it would have more omega 3 PUFA levels and thus a greater effect. The paper also shows that boiling farm milk diminishes the effect significantly.  

 

Here is a link to a sensible, practical, balanced review of the research. It is written by real scientists in the same issue of the journal in which the research was published:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5024740/

 

On a related note, a cup of full-fat milk only provides approximately 1/8 of the daily allowance of the relevant omega 3s.  So, you must drink 8 cups of full-fat milk a day to meet this number.  That will give you ~ 2x the amount of saturated fats allowed - that is the trade-off, and it is not a good trade-off.

 

My bottom lines: 

 

For kids:  Feed them high-fat pasteurized milk.  Maybe in the future, we can get them supplemented with omega 3s.

 

For adults:  Drink pasteurized low fat milk.  Get your omega 3s elsewhere - fish.  If vegetarian, eat walnuts, flax seed, even veggies like cauliflower have good amounts.

  

Do not drink unpasteurized raw milk.

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Brainfade

[Alam_dar]

2 hours ago, asterix said:

to Mulo & Alam being unperturbed and unhindered by all these useless cricket related discussions and carrying on posting massive posts.... :p

It is boring to discuss  with Mulo as he is giving me hard time, but I am thankful to him that due to him I have to study a lot and  learnt a great deal. 

[Muloghonto]

10 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Problem remains there that such feed in the farms is going to cost a lot of money. Much much more money than the cheap alternative of soy. But even using soy is not able to bring the price of Salmon to that level where average Indian family could afford to eat it every day like milk. 

 

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. 

Quote

Hilsa is not sustainable if whole Indian population has to feed the fish every day. 

Again, fish farms. Read up on the sustainability of them. 

Quote

Calcium:
Another important question is about Calcium and milk is the most important source of it. 

100 grams of Salmon has only 58 mg of calcium (link), which is only 6% of daily recommended quantity. This means, one has to eat 1.3 kg of Salmon daily to get the required calcium. 

 

In India, there are not so many substitutes available for calcium through diet, if one does not drinks milk. 

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. 

 

Quote

Your above mentioned study says:

 

(1) 3.2% population of US drinks raw milk. Population of US is 326 million, which means 10 million of US citizens are consuming raw milk. 

 

(2) According to your own mentioned study, from these 10 million consumers there are only 760 illnesses/year and only 22 hospitalizations/year, but no deaths. 

These figures themselves prove that you were exaggerating the dangers heavily. Off course this is not in significant numbers. While on pasteurized milk, there are 30% people in the Indian cities suffering from asthma and allergies which is much more huge numbers. And MOST ASTHMA DEATHS IN WORLD OCCUR IN INDIA: WHO

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. 

 

 

Quote

(3) No wonder that US government then allowed the sale of raw milk from the sanitized and refrigeration controlled sources. 

And same sources lead to greater disease rate as proven by the study. 

 

Quote

(4) Please also remember that these 10 million raw milk consumers in US are not getting the raw milk from these clean sources, but they are using the normal farmed milk which is not even present in the control list of US authorities recommended sources. 

Therefore, that study will matter which could prove the illnesses from these government authorized raw milk sellers. 

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. 

 

Quote

 

 

You have no proofs other than your conjecture. 

Same for you. You are simply assuming that something allowed = scientifically safe. No proof of that is presented from you. 

Quote

I don't know why are you saying this. 

Your mentioned study says that these cases in America appeared mainly due to:

(1) E. Coli. 

But this Escherichia coli lives in the intestine and could not come directly in the milk. Their path is through feces of live stock and then contamination of milk due to the poor sanitization. 

Link: Sources of E. coli Infection

 

(2) And 2nd biggest reason of illness is Salmonella.

Again this is a sanitization problem while they contaminate through animal feces. 

//

Salmonella food poisoning - Foodborne Illness

www.foodborneillness.com/salmonella_food_poisoning/
Salmonella infection usually occurs when a person eats food contaminated with the feces of animals or humans carrying the bacteria.

//

 

(3) And the 3rd biggest reason of illness through raw milk in America was L. monocytogenes:

But again this is environmental issue and related to sanitization. 

//

L. monocytogenes has been isolated from different species and from soil, plants, mud, pasture, waste water and streams. ... In cases of L. monocytogenes contamination of milk, the most likely source of the listeria is from the environment post-milking.Jul 6, 2012

A case of bovine raw milk contamination with Listeria monocytogenes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3526472/

//

 

(4) And the fourth and last one is Campylobacter

Again this one too is related to sanitization as it also contaminates through the feces.

//

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870394/

//

 

Prove to us that these sanitation risks do not exist in your so-called 'perfect dairy farms'. 

Quote

 

Nothing changes as 5% also makes millions of people consuming raw meat and raw fish. 

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. 

 

 

 

Quote

 

It is not needed to be proved as the scientific study is more than enough to prove that all the high quantity of milk consuming nations excel the others. And this study is proving that proteins in milk are much more essential than of the 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. 

 

Quote

 

Any how, Native Indians didn't have any dairy products and it is a mystery how they got such big stature. 

 

It is no mystery. Better balanced diet than settled societies have caused greater height in virtually all pre-farming societies. 

Quote

Please don't ignore the main issue here and I would ask you to deny this scientific study directly. 

 

It seems that there is evidence that  Native Americans were also drinking some raw milk from LAMAs:

//

http://www.dairymoos.com/milk-in-pre-columbian-america/

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. 

 

Quote

It could not only the meat which made them huge, while Inuits used much more meat than the Native Indians, but still they were not tall.

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. 

Quote

Similarly, this could not deny the huge scientific study, which was done in the 192 countries of the world, and which proved milk has a role in the height of the humans. 

 

The Proteins of meat are no where near to the milk when it comes to the completeness and high quality of proteins. 

Beef scores only 94 in completeness of Protein (link).

While raw milk scores 139 in completeness (link).

This is a huge difference which makes milk proteins much more valuable. 

These 'scores' mean nothing, bud. Not scientific benchmark. 

 

Quote

10 million consumers alone in US is insignificant numbers for you? 

Yep. 10 million out of 300 million is less than 4%. Which is a statistical insignificance. 

Quote

All the scientific proofs provided above along with Governments allowing it's sale while they considered it safe enough after the sanitization which is the original cause of contamination with bad bacteria. 

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. 

Quote

Strange this optimal diet of yours causing all types of allergies and cancers in humans due to the poisons caused during cooking, but you still claim them to be optimal. 

 

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. 

 

Quote

Conclusion:

All the major factors which caused the illnesses in US, they were related to the sanitization problems. 

No wonder why US, UK and Germany allowed the consumption of raw milk by putting the conditions of sanitization and refrigeration. 

 

 

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. 

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Alam_dar]

@Muloghonto

You blames me continuously for religiously supporting raw diet. 

May I request you to please also look at your behaviour and make it sure that your stays objective and personal ego does not comes in the discussion and if you are presented by facts, then you have the ability to accept it and change your opinion. Thanks.

 

You said: 

Quote

Prove to us that these sanitation risks do not exist in your so-called 'perfect dairy farms'. 

Please first consider your earlier claim where you said that sanitation do jack shi*t to the pox viruses. But you didn't answer the following questions, but neglected them:

 

1st Question: Which are these pox viruses you are talking about?  Please name them. 

2nd Question:  And if not sanitation then how they contaminate the Milk?

3rd Question: And prove us that these pox viruses have killed/hospitalized how many of Americans in the study you presented. 

 

I didn't avoid to answer you study. Why you avoid then my questions?

 

Quote

 Prove to us that such sanitary practices actually exist

Sir, it is bit childish from you. Therefore, I requested you to show the ability to accept your mistake and to change your opinion. 

 

These sanitary practices exists while Government is directly regulating it. No farm gets the license to sell raw milk (or Vorzugsmilch in Germany till Government approved team of experts don't visit the farm, inspect it for all the regulations of sanitization, and then make the tests to see their presence in the milk. Only after such controls, a farm gets the licence to sell raw milk. In the first Article of this threat, it has already been mentioned that UK government up till issued this lincence only to 70 farms. 

 

Here is UK government itself answering your question:

//

https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/raw-cows-drinking-milk

Registration process of Farms for selling raw milk

When our Approvals and Registrations Team receive your application, the following will happen:

• one of our Dairy Hygiene Inspectors will visit the holding and carry out an inspection - if conditions on the holding are acceptable, then a sample of raw milk will be taken and analysed under food hygiene legislation
• once the sample has been analysed with a satisfactory outcome - the Approvals and Registration Team will contact Animal Plant Health Authority (APHA) to confirm the holding has a TB free status  

• Milk sampling and testing

  You will have to test the raw milk. Our Dairy Hygiene Inspector will need to see raw milk sampling results under food hygiene legislation. 

  You must initiate the procedure to ensure that the raw cows' milk meets the following criteria:

• plate count at 30 °C (per ml) ≤ 100 000 - rolling geometric average over a two-month period, with at least two samples per month
• somatic cell count (per ml) ≤ 400 000 - rolling geometric average over a three-month period, with at least one sample per month, unless the competent authority specifies another methodology to take account of seasonal variations in production levels

//

 

Quote

and show us your scientific paper of similar quality that shows raw milk is safe. 

 

* Why is it needed any more when your own Paper is contradicted your claim and made it clear that main culprit is not the raw milk itself, but it is the sanitation? 

* Why is it needed any more when the Governments agreed to the safety of raw milk after the sanitation controls?

* Why is it needed when you are unable to show us how many people died/hospitalized due to the raw milk itself (without the sanitation issue)?

Therefore, if you claim that raw milk is in itself deadly and epidemic, then please bring your exact stats and proofs first and only then make any claims. 

 

 

Quote

10 million is an insignificant number to 300 million. its less than 4 percent.

* 10 million is more than the total population of Israel. 

 

* And there is not a single death due to the raw milk, and only 22 hospitalized. 
While the numbers of people who die due to cancer and other diseases in Israel is in thousands. So tell us how this case of 22 hospitalization in case of raw milk is "significant" as compared to hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and deaths due to other diseases?

Please don't change the question which is the significance. While you are bringing the question of safety of raw milk vs pasteurized milk. 

 

* And the most wrong approach that you took was this too bring the numbers of hospitalizations which were caused due to the sanitization issues and not due to the raw milk itself, and then to declare that raw milk is itself killing the people epidemically. Actually you could not make any claims till the time you are unable to bring the numbers of hospitalized people who used the milk from the government approved farms.  

 

Conclusion:

 

Yes, raw milk is more dangerous than pasteurized, but still it is insignificant when compared to the sufferings of people who are hospitalized or died due to other diseases which were for example caused by pasteurized milk and meat (like allergies, asthama, cancers). 

 

Let us see some facts:

 

* In UK, there are 45000 people die every year due to the meat (link) 

 

* Population of UK is 65 million and 45000 deaths due to meat.

While 10 million Americans drink raw milk and numbers of death is 0

 

* Raw Milk has beneficial Omega 3 fats, helping in so many ways against so many diseases.

While cooked meat has worst kind of fats, and cancer causing chemicals.

 

//

(Study Link)

"Sinha`s team noted that meat contains several cancer-causing chemicals, as well as the unhealthiest forms of fat."

"Meat is not only killing large numbers of people, but also make large numbers of people ill" (Study link as above)

"eating meat boosts risk of prostate cancer by 40 Percent." 

" Parents learned that their children had a 60% increased risk of developing leukemia if they consumed meat products"

"Meat eaters are twice as likely to die from heart disease (as compared to the vegetarians), have a 60 percent greater risk of dying from cancer and a 30 percent higher risk of death from other causes."

//

 

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Alam_dar

[Muloghonto]

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

@Muloghonto

You blames me continuously for religiously supporting raw diet. 

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.

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

May I request you to please also look at your behaviour and make it sure that your stays objective and personal ego does not comes in the discussion and if you are presented by facts, then you have the ability to accept it and change your opinion. Thanks.

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. 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

You said: 

Please first consider your earlier claim where you said that sanitation do jack shi*t to the pox viruses. But you didn't answer the following questions, but neglected them:

Yes, it does jack sh*t to microbes occuring naturally in said animal. 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

1st Question: Which are these pox viruses you are talking about?  Please name them. 

All pox viruses originate from bovines. Cow pox, smallpox, chicken pox - all bovine-related illnesses, because bovines are natural reservoirs to these viruses.

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

2nd Question:  And if not sanitation then how they contaminate the Milk?

It occurs NATURALLY in them. do you understand what symbiosis means ? these are basic, high-school biology stuff buddy. 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

3rd Question: And prove us that these pox viruses have killed/hospitalized how many of Americans in the study you presented. 

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. 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

I didn't avoid to answer you study. Why you avoid then my questions?

 

Sir, it is bit childish from you. Therefore, I requested you to show the ability to accept your mistake and to change your opinion. 

 

These sanitary practices exists while Government is directly regulating it. No farm gets the license to sell raw milk (or Vorzugsmilch in Germany till Government approved team of experts don't visit the farm, inspect it for all the regulations of sanitization, and then make the tests to see their presence in the milk. Only after such controls, a farm gets the licence to sell raw milk. In the first Article of this threat, it has already been mentioned that UK government up till issued this lincence only to 70 farms. 

 

 

Show us evidence that your raw milk source has less listeria, e-coli etc. than pre-pateurized milk from regular milk farms. 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

Here is UK government itself answering your question:

//

https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/raw-cows-drinking-milk

Registration process of Farms for selling raw milk

When our Approvals and Registrations Team receive your application, the following will happen:

• one of our Dairy Hygiene Inspectors will visit the holding and carry out an inspection - if conditions on the holding are acceptable, then a sample of raw milk will be taken and analysed under food hygiene legislation
• once the sample has been analysed with a satisfactory outcome - the Approvals and Registration Team will contact Animal Plant Health Authority (APHA) to confirm the holding has a TB free status  

• Milk sampling and testing

  You will have to test the raw milk. Our Dairy Hygiene Inspector will need to see raw milk sampling results under food hygiene legislation. 

  You must initiate the procedure to ensure that the raw cows' milk meets the following criteria:

• plate count at 30 °C (per ml) ≤ 100 000 - rolling geometric average over a two-month period, with at least two samples per month
• somatic cell count (per ml) ≤ 400 000 - rolling geometric average over a three-month period, with at least one sample per month, unless the competent authority specifies another methodology to take account of seasonal variations in production levels

//

 

And nowhere does it say that the standards prescribed equates to just as low a microbial content as pateurized milk. 

 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

* Why is it needed any more when your own Paper is contradicted your claim and made it clear that main culprit is not the raw milk itself, but it is the sanitation? 

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. 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

* Why is it needed any more when the Governments agreed to the safety of raw milk after the sanitation controls?

Because governments do not agree that it is safer. I have already presented evidence of my government & medical body stating it is unsafe. 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

* Why is it needed when you are unable to show us how many people died/hospitalized due to the raw milk itself (without the sanitation issue)?

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. 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

Therefore, if you claim that raw milk is in itself deadly and epidemic, then please bring your exact stats and proofs first and only then make any claims. 

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. 

 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

 

* 10 million is more than the total population of Israel. 

And its still less than 4% of US and 0.01% of Humanity. Its a nothing- number. 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

* And there is not a single death due to the raw milk, and only 22 hospitalized. 

Which is 22 more than pasteurized milk. Therefore, pasteurized milk is safer. As i originally claimed. 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

While the numbers of people who die due to cancer and other diseases in Israel is in thousands. So tell us how this case of 22 hospitalization in case of raw milk is "significant" as compared to hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and deaths due to other diseases?

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. 

 

 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

* And the most wrong approach that you took was this too bring the numbers of hospitalizations which were caused due to the sanitization issues and not due to the raw milk itself, and then to declare that raw milk is itself killing the people epidemically. Actually you could not make any claims till the time you are unable to bring the numbers of hospitalized people who used the milk from the government approved farms.  

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. 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

Conclusion:

 

Yes, raw milk is more dangerous than pasteurized, but still it is insignificant when compared to the sufferings of people who are hospitalized or died due to other diseases which were for example caused by pasteurized milk and meat (like allergies, asthama, cancers). 

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. 

 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

Let us see some facts:

 

* In UK, there are 45000 people die every year due to the meat (link) 

 

* Population of UK is 65 million and 45000 deaths due to meat.

While 10 million Americans drink raw milk and numbers of death is 0

So what ? they didn't die due to modern medicine. 100 years ago, most of them would be dead. 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

* Raw Milk has beneficial Omega 3 fats, helping in so many ways against so many diseases.

While cooked meat has worst kind of fats, and cancer causing chemicals.

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.

 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 6:08 AM, Alam_dar said:

//

(Study Link)

"Sinha`s team noted that meat contains several cancer-causing chemicals, as well as the unhealthiest forms of fat."

"Meat is not only killing large numbers of people, but also make large numbers of people ill" (Study link as above)

"eating meat boosts risk of prostate cancer by 40 Percent." 

" Parents learned that their children had a 60% increased risk of developing leukemia if they consumed meat products"

"Meat eaters are twice as likely to die from heart disease (as compared to the vegetarians), have a 60 percent greater risk of dying from cancer and a 30 percent higher risk of death from other causes."

//

 

 

 

 

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.

 

[Muloghonto]

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. 

[Alam_dar]

@Muloghonto

* You have provided only one case from a government controlled farm, which resulted in 5 hospitalizations.

While question was how many of the total 22 hospitalizations (per year due to raw milk) occurred due to the government controlled farms? 

 

* It is indeed government law to wash the udder before milking.

Nevertheless, human error is still possible. 

But this farm did the regular lab tests. In previous reports of the lab, there was no danger present. But then latest test (at time when this outbreak occurred), lab also gave the alarm and thus the farm had itself already stopped the sale of milk. (Whole report here)

 

* Human error is present every where. Why then only to blame the raw milk?

There are many outbreaks even due to the pasteurized milk and it's products, which occurred due to the human errors of not refrigerating the pasteurized milk properly etc. 

 

* Despite the only one case of controlled farm, and  5 hospitalizations, still the numbers are totally totally "insignificant", when we compare it with the consumption of cooked meat, or even the hospitalizations due the asthma and allergies caused by the consumption of pasteurized milk. 

While NO deaths were registered due to raw milk, but the number of deaths due to cooked meat and asthma and allergies are in thousands. 

 

7 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

False. 

 

There were not 700 hospitalizations, but only 22 hospitalizations per year due to the consumption of raw milk in the 10 million population of US (according to your own provided research paper). 

 

Thus the numbers are insignificant when we compare it to the the diet that you propose. 

 

[Alam_dar]

And I proposed the use of "Raw Milk Cheese" above, which is absolutely safe. 

 

Nevertheless, same propaganda was done by the pasteurized milk companies for decades and they kept the government misguided who also banned the "Raw Milk Cheese". 

 

But finally, after a long battle, the people won the battle against these companies and the government. Finally, in the light of modern scientific proofs, FDA had to accept that "raw milk cheese" was as safe as the pasteurized cheese and thus allowed the sale of raw milk cheese in the same way as the raw

 

 

https://healthimpactnews.com/2016/fda-finally-admits-raw-cheese-not-dangerous/

In Its War on Raw Milk Cheese, FDA Finally Beats a Retreat

For more than a decade, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has had an undeclared war on raw milk cheese, until [last] week, when the FDA finally beat a retreat.

At the conclusion of its latest assault against raw milk cheese–a research study of more than 1,600 cheese samples to test for pathogens–the FDA made this remarkable admission:

“The data collected by the FDA indicate that the prevalences of Salmonella and pathogenic Shiga toxin- producing E. coli are relatively low and similar to the contamination rates in many other foods.”

 

//

 

Thus, those who still fear the raw milk, but still want to reap the benefits of raw milk and want to live a healthy way, they have an option to use the "raw milk cheese". 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

27 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

@Muloghonto

* You have provided only one case from a government controlled farm, which resulted in 5 hospitalizations.

While question was how many of the total 22 hospitalizations (per year due to raw milk) occurred due to the government controlled farms? 

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. 

 

27 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

* It is indeed government law to wash the udder before milking.

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. 

27 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Nevertheless, human error is still possible. 

Which is why, pasteurization is SAFER. 

27 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

But this farm did the regular lab tests. In previous reports of the lab, there was no danger present. But then latest test (at time when this outbreak occurred), lab also gave the alarm and thus the farm had itself already stopped the sale of milk. (Whole report here)

 

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. 

27 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

* Human error is present every where. Why then only to blame the raw milk?

Because human error leading to raw milk being unsafe can be mitigated by pasteurization. So its SAFER. 

27 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

There are many outbreaks even due to the pasteurized milk and it's products, which occurred due to the human errors of not refrigerating the pasteurized milk properly etc. 

Sure. But pasteurization makes it safer.

i have proved this. Stop your religious denial of the facts. 

 

27 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

* Despite the only one case of controlled farm, and  5 hospitalizations, still the numbers are totally totally "insignificant", when we compare it with the consumption of cooked meat, or even the hospitalizations due the asthma and allergies caused by the consumption of pasteurized milk. 

Proof please. show us the number of asthma victims suffering asthma due to pasteurized milk. Scientific data to back up your claim please. 

 

27 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

While NO deaths were registered due to raw milk, but the number of deaths due to cooked meat and asthma and allergies are in thousands. 

Show us evidence that the deaths are caused directly by cooked meat. 

 

 

27 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Thus the numbers are insignificant when we compare it to the the diet that you propose. 

 

The diet that i propose, is scientifically safer. Evidence has been provided. 

[Muloghonto]

23 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

And I proposed the use of "Raw Milk Cheese" above, which is absolutely safe. 

Again, religious nonsense being peddled as fact. Facts clearly show that raw milk & raw milk cheese are unsafe. Scientific article already provided. 

 

23 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Nevertheless, same propaganda was done by the pasteurized milk companies for decades and they kept the government misguided who also banned the "Raw Milk Cheese". 

 

But finally, after a long battle, the people won the battle against these companies and the government. Finally, in the light of modern scientific proofs, FDA had to accept that "raw milk cheese" was as safe as the pasteurized cheese and thus allowed the sale of raw milk cheese in the same way as the raw

 

 

https://healthimpactnews.com/2016/fda-finally-admits-raw-cheese-not-dangerous/

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.

 

 

 

[Alam_dar]

39 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

The study that you cited before didn't pointed out if the cases came of 22 hospitalizations/per year came from the government controlled farms or the normal farms where farmers are allowed to consume the raw milk that they produce, even if they don't have the government license and even if they don't follow the government guidelines. 

 

The last study that you posted, it showed only one government licensed farm, where once the outbreak occurred (i.e. not before this incident and not after that incident). And 5 people were hospitalized. 

 

Therefore, it is your responsibility to show exactly how many times, and in how many years did this breakout occurred in the government licensed farms. 

 

Secondly, even if we take the 22 hospitalizations per year for all the farms, still this is an insignificant number. And this is a fact which you could not deny, and thus you always neglect it. 

 

39 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

I don't know what you are talking about. The udder of cow are washed and sanitized before milking, and this sanitization is enough not only for the faeces, but also for the urine. And if during the process of milking cow urinates, still it could not contaminate the milk. 

Contamination could only take place if a human forgets to sanitize the udder of cow before milking. 

 

39 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Which is why, pasteurization is SAFER. 

Yes pasteurization is safer, but the complete fact is: "Pasteurization is safer, but only slightly and insignificantly if the proper sanitization and controls are taken of raw milk".

 

39 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Proof please. show us the number of asthma victims suffering asthma due to pasteurized milk. Scientific data to back up your claim please. 

Strange that you still ask this. 

All the facts are present in the very first post of this thread. 

Scientific Studies showing "SIGNIFICANT" numbers of people suffering from allergies and asthma due to the usage of pasteurized milk as compared to those who drink raw milk. 

39 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Show us evidence that the deaths are caused directly by cooked meat. 

So you mean that indirect deaths is Ok with the cooked meat where people suffer for decades with their cancers and other chronic diseases due to the consumption of cooked meat? 

Therefore I asked why not to ban the meat and only vegetables are allowed to be eaten?

 

[Alam_dar]

57 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

This is politics, not scientific research paper. Scientific research paper has been provided. It shows raw milk is unsafe. 

Why is it not a scientific paper? 

And the talk here is "raw milk cheese", but you are bringing the issue of "raw milk". Why not to talk about "raw milk cheese" and show us that the government has said that it is more dangerous than the other food products?

 

57 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

Total false. 

 

These are the "Experts in the Field" who have provided the "Scientific Fact" that raw milk cheese is as safe as other food products. 

And government is not caving to any pressure on this issue, but to the "Scientific FACT" which government itself admitting in this paper by accepting that raw milk cheese is safe like other food products. 

 

And how is it a conspiracy theory when government had first banned the raw milk cheese for decades without any sound scientific proofs? The FDA retreat over this issue is itself a proof enough that this ban was not due to the scientific fact, but due to the propaganda of the pasteurization companies. 

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

The study that you cited before didn't pointed out if the cases came of 22 hospitalizations/per year came from the government controlled farms or the normal farms where farmers are allowed to consume the raw milk that they produce, even if they don't have the government license and even if they don't follow the government guidelines. 

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. 

 

Quote

The last study that you posted, it showed only one government licensed farm, where once the outbreak occurred (i.e. not before this incident and not after that incident). And 5 people were hospitalized. 

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. 

 

Quote

Therefore, it is your responsibility to show exactly how many times, and in how many years did this breakout occurred in the government licensed farms. 

 

Secondly, even if we take the 22 hospitalizations per year for all the farms, still this is an insignificant number. And this is a fact which you could not deny, and thus you always neglect it. 

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. 

 

Quote

 

I don't know what you are talking about. The udder of cow are washed and sanitized before milking, and this sanitization is enough not only for the faeces, but also for the urine. And if during the process of milking cow urinates, still it could not contaminate the milk. 

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.

 

 

Quote

Contamination could only take place if a human forgets to sanitize the udder of cow before milking. 

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. 

 

Quote

Yes pasteurization is safer, but the complete fact is: "Pasteurization is safer, but only slightly and insignificantly if the proper sanitization and controls are taken of raw milk".

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. 

 

 

Quote

Strange that you still ask this. 

All the facts are present in the very first post of this thread. 

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. 

Quote

Scientific Studies showing "SIGNIFICANT" numbers of people suffering from allergies and asthma due to the usage of pasteurized milk as compared to those who drink raw 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. 

Quote

So you mean that indirect deaths is Ok with the cooked meat where people suffer for decades with their cancers and other chronic diseases due to the consumption of cooked meat? 

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'. 

Quote

Therefore I asked why not to ban the meat and only vegetables are allowed to be eaten?

 

Because as i have repeatedly said, cooked meat is optimal nutrition for humans in terms of proteins. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Why is it not a scientific paper? 

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. 

6 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

And the talk here is "raw milk cheese", but you are bringing the issue of "raw milk". Why not to talk about "raw milk cheese" and show us that the government has said that it is more dangerous than the other food products?

Raw milk cheese is made from raw milk, where the microbes survive. Ergo, unsafe. 

 

6 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Total false. 

 

These are the "Experts in the Field" who have provided the "Scientific Fact" that raw milk cheese is as safe as other food products. 

BS.

I have already presented evidence that raw milk and raw milk cheese (which my article also includes) are unsafe food. 

6 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

And government is not caving to any pressure on this issue, but to the "Scientific FACT" which government itself admitting in this paper by accepting that raw milk cheese is safe like other food products. 

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. 

 

6 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

And how is it a conspiracy theory when government had first banned the raw milk cheese for decades without any sound scientific proofs? The FDA retreat over this issue is itself a proof enough that this ban was not due to the scientific fact, but due to the propaganda of the pasteurization companies. 

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.