OT: health benefits of drinking raw milk

the pursuit of happiness. Typhoid Mary is the post-child here.

enthusiasm for raw milk is doing to himself and his family, and how it's putting his friends and neighbours at risk, but his neighbours could get just as

sick from his ignorance as they would have done if he'd done it maliciously.

As usual your logic is backwards:

"Early life consumption of raw cow's milk reduced the risk of manifest respiratory infections and fever by about 30%"

from the study that you ignore :)

cheers, Jamie

make stupid choices, because there is less social interaction and silly ideas get challenged less often.

by pathogens carried by other human beings. This does make living in rural areas a healthier way to live. If become a hermit and don't

talk to anybody else at all you'll be even less likely to get a cold. Of course, if you do get sick, nobody will notice, let alone stick

you into a car and drive you off to hospital, which may explain why deeply rural areas in Australia have lower life expectancies - at

least for males.

Hi,

You should read that link again, if you factor out the reduced life expectancy of indigenous Australians, who tend to live in non-urban areas, the second table actually shows that people in remote regions have a similar or sometimes higher life expectancy than people living in urban areas:

"Life expectancy (years) for non-Indigenous Australians, by Remoteness Area, 2002-04"

Your "logic" isn't backwards anymore at least, now you are arguing in circles.

cheers, Jamie

That was from 1938, I am assuming it was during a time of a TB outbreak.

cheers, Jamie

Hi,

Please show me where I have misinterpreted the study, I believe it is pretty clear just showing raw milk prepared safely has immense health benefits over pasteurized milk. Also pasteurized milk is responsible for spreading disease based on the results of the study.

cheers, Jamie

When "ifs" and "ands" are pots and pans there'll be no need for tinkers. My immune system is working just fine. It is not capable of preventing *all* disease even when working perfectly.

Your thinking is messed up and you feel no need to fix that. I suggest your brain is deficient.

BTW, do you have any understanding of how the immune system works? I mean, do you really know anything about it? Check out some of the TED talks like Bonnie Bassler. You can learn a few things about how disease defeats our immune system. Or you can remain ignorant of the knowledge we have learned over the past hundred or so years.

I think I'm done with you on this topic. You really don't want to know the facts. You want to believe what makes you feel good rather than feeling good that you know the truth.

THERE! You just did it! "immense health benefits" is nowhere indicated in the paper. Reducing colds is hardly what anyone could call "immense" and your statement ignores the health risks. Did you follow the link I provided at one point? The web site is about drinking raw milk and has numerous cases of people becoming very ill, losing organs and even dying. You can blame that on anything you wish, but your obsession with unsupported health claims will only hurt you.

I'm not discussing this with you anymore. It is clear that you have no real info to support your statements. It is also clear that you are completely incapable of understanding that. So there is no point whatsoever in trying to explain it to you.

in a > >>> cow. "

ot have the fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of your choi ce.

ng

ight > > anti-social. Jamie may be too ill-informed to realise that that's what his

'd

It might have said that, but what it reported was that it observed 30% fewe r manifest respiratory infections and fever in the raw milk drinkers.

It didn't record how often the potential victims had been exposed to potent ial respiratory infections - how many neighbours had dropped by and sneezed on the target population - so it couldn't say anything about the risk of g etting infected by any single exposure to infection, because it didn't reco rd that data.

Since - as I pointed out - anybody silly enough to feed their kids raw cows milk is likely to be some kind of rural idiot that nobody in their right m ind would want to visit, there is an appreciable chance that what is actual ly being recorded is the social isolation of raw milk drinkers.

To the degree that their dangerous and irresponsible habit was public knowl edge, sensible people would avoid them, and avoid exposing their kids to th em, in the same way that vaccination-avoiders are shunned, and for exactly the same reason.

nger

ng

ws

ey

ad

and

ind > >>> of rural idiots who drink raw milk and take the risk of feeding

re

sed

ms

in

is

ve

m to > > realise that rural settings make it easier for people to

et

You clearly didn't look at all the entries. I did. There's exactly one entr y showing a higher life expectancy for a very remote area - the one for non

-indigenous females in very remote areas. There aren't that many people liv ing in very remote ares, so it is probably statistical noise, though it may just reflect the fact that elderly non-indigenous women living in remote a reas have enough sense to move closer to hospitals when they get old and fr ail.

Elderly men do tend to be less sensible, and less susceptible to the anxiet ies of their kids.

As evidence that living is rural areas in healthier than living in urban ar eas it's less than convincing.

I guess you don't get my meaning. It shouldn't BE illegal.

Focusing on the specific chemical reactions within the immune system is good to learn, but it is proven that nutrition (including ideas of gut bacteria) and stress are also important factors in immunity. Often these simple ideas are overlooked by the immunity experts, so for the average person the detailed immunity information is not useful, since it has taken away from common sense in many respects leading to acceptance of poor dietary choices and high stress lifestyles, as these things have been disconnected from what people think of as controllable immunity factors somewhat.

cheers, Jamie

sneezed on the target population - so it couldn't say anything about the risk of getting infected by any single exposure to infection, because it

didn't record that data.

right mind would want to visit, there is an appreciable chance that what is actually being recorded is the social isolation of raw milk drinkers.

to them, in the same way that vaccination-avoiders are shunned, and for exactly the same reason.

Well at least your imagination although somewhat warped apparently is healthy! :)

Ok, I defer to your much greater wisdom.

If what you post is your idea of "common sense" a little more subtraction and disconnection might not be a bad idea.

As far as I know, every immunity expert is aware that the performance of the human immune system is dependent on general health - and that stress, bad diet and lack of sleep can compromise it.

Sadly for your credibility, drinking raw milk isn't widely recognised as a way of making yourself healthier. It may taste better, but every now and then it contains dangerous infectious agents that can make even the healthiest drinker sick.

The article seems to argue that raw milk drinkers had less TB in a time when TB was more common. There is not a lot of other background information to go on, you are willing to make assumptions that they are talking about nation wide cases, 14 cases nation wide when TB rates were historically much higher then. I guess if that is what you want to see as truth go for it, but the article was written to show the health benefits of reduced TB infection in raw milk drinkers I think.

from that page:

"Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported."

That seems pretty obvious that they are talking about TB cases within the same organization and not nation wide cases since TB was widespread at the time..

cheers, Jamie

Dude, I have correspoded with quite a few Australians online and found that they tend to siply believe the "authorities".

They forget all the times the "authorities" were wrong. Ask certain people if butter or margarine is better for you and they will ask "What year ?".

Hi,

I tend not to try to prove my belief in raw milk health benefits to the detriment of my own arguments in this case I agree! I just know raw milk is healthier it is common sense to me, and there are a lot of people who drink it, I don't see it as needing to be defended, but I think pasteurized milk should really be looked at closely as it has many potential health problems associated with drinking it. :D

cheers, Jamie

Hi,

Actually I had been familiar with the stats before, here is a link if you want to check the numbers more:

"Based on the CDC?s own survey, the average number of people drinking raw milk in this 2006-2007 sampling was 3.0% of the population, ranging from 2.3% in Minnesota to 3.8% in Georgia."

check page 13 of that pdf to see the stat referenced above.

cheers, Jamie

This particular Australian is not inclined to "simply believe" the authorities. I know a little too much to ever do that. Granting your erratic grammar and eccentric spelling, it seems likely that those Australians who would condescend to correspond with you wouldn't be as well-informed.