Argument about raw milk from another group

[Guest guest]

I'm arguing with someone from one of my local about the

benefits of raw milk. She posts articles regularly from the NotMilk.com

site, and articles touting the wonders of soy.

I'm hoping I could get some feedback on some of her thoughts that I can post

to the group. I also sent this to the Raw Dairy group, but since I just

joined and haven't been formally introduced, I think my posts may not show

up until the waiting period is over.

Any thoughts/comments are appreciated, as I'm new to a lot of the

nutritional information regarding raw dairy and NT-style eating.

Naomi

She wrote:

> > " the more dairy a person consumes, worldwide, the more bone fractures --

hands

> > down "

Someone said:

> > I have read that this is true for pasteurized milk, but not raw milk.

Her reply:

> Are there any studies you know of? I think it's just assumption at this point

> -- doesn't make it wrong, but I don't know. hmmm, maybe if I search under

> " farmers " and osteoporosis I can find something. I know they dring a lot of

> their own raw milk because they get a lot of leukemia.

She posted:

> My problem with the raw milk is that there are just no good studies yet (it's

> not popular enough yet) to show that people aren't having the same problems in

> some realms of commercial milk's many maladies.

And I sent a link to the " SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IN FAVOR OF RAW MILK " at

http://www.karlloren.com/aajonus/p15.htm

These were her thoughts on it:

> The many reports of milk's links to cancer in this paper are quite true --

> they report these as associated with " pasteurized mik " when in fact most

> (all?) of these studies are just measuring " milk. " There's no way to describe

> these as things that would not happen with raw milk. It's making pasteurized

> milk sound bad -- i.e. worse than raw milk, when there's no proof whatsoever

> that raw milk wouldn't do the same thing. There are a few theories throughout

> the link you provided as to why specific cancers or cancer pathways may not

> occur with raw milk, but they're just theories at this point. I do hope that

> controlled studies/epidemiologic examinations take place in the future as more

> and more raw milk drinkers abound. It will be interesting.

>  

> If raw milk truly has galactase (I can't find anythign to truly support or

> deny this), then the galactose from milk's lactose shouldn't cause cataracts

> and ovarian cancers, as it is suspected to do from pasteurized milk. It's a

> little questionable as to whether it's actually in there though, as some sites

> claim that raw cow's milk contains lactase, and I know that human milk does

> not and found one government description of raw cow's milk stating that it

> does not. An online and medline search to find galactase in cow's milk gave me

> nothing to cling to.

>  

> I did find this, unfortunately, as I work with many milk

> allergics/intolerants:

> Raw untreated cow's milk and unhomogenized cow's milk is as allergenic as

> normal pasteurized and homogenized milk products. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Ab

stract & list_uids=7704117

>  

> AND in another study:  upon " oral challenge the three different processed milk

> types provoked significant and similar allergic reactions in each child, "  

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Ab

stract & list_uids=3284399

>  

> It also kindof blows at least part of the altered protein theories of the raw

> milk claims.

[Guest guest]

Has she read Price yet? It's true that not everyone can tolerate milk, raw

or not, so if she is treating patients with true milk allergies, that's all

she may see on her radar screen. However, the claim that milk is inherently

bad for you is totally proven wrong by the Masai and the Swiss profiled by

Price.

[Guest guest]

> Has she read Price yet? It's true that not everyone can tolerate

milk, raw

> or not, so if she is treating patients with true milk allergies,

that's all

> she may see on her radar screen. However, the claim that milk is

inherently

> bad for you is totally proven wrong by the Masai and the Swiss

profiled by

> Price.

>

>

I think she admitted privately to another group member (who's into

WAP and NT)

that she hasn't read any of his work. In fact, she was just debating

with this person

online about how the Soy page at the WAP site is full of

misinformation.

That's what's so maddening--she's a local author who's written a book

and excellent

articles on Attachment Parenting, but I don't

think nutrition is her forté. Because she's an author she comes

across as an " expert, "

and I'm afraid her p.o.v. is scaring away people who may be on the

fence about raw dairy.

It's been an uphill battle to get NT-style information to the group,

even though it touts

itself as one that's open to alternatives to mainstream-type

thinking. I post info. about

kefir, fermenting food and brix, but most of the time it falls on

deaf ears.

Oh well--I guess my hopes of getting local people IRL interested in

the things I'm interested in is just not going to pan out.

Naomi

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I would agree milk, raw or not, is bad for a lot of people. People

of northern European decent seem to tolerate it well. But for others

it is an extremely beneficial and healthful food. Has to be a

personal choice imho. To me it's useless to argue whether milk is

good or bad in general.

Regards, Joe

>

> > > " the more dairy a person consumes, worldwide, the more bone

fractures --

> hands

> > > down "

>

> Someone said:

>

> > > I have read that this is true for pasteurized milk, but not raw

milk.

>

> Her reply:

>

> > Are there any studies you know of? I think it's just assumption

at this point

> > -- doesn't make it wrong, but I don't know. hmmm, maybe if I

search under

> > " farmers " and osteoporosis I can find something. I know they

dring a lot of

> > their own raw milk because they get a lot of leukemia.

>

>

> She posted:

>

> > My problem with the raw milk is that there are just no good

studies yet (it's

> > not popular enough yet) to show that people aren't having the

same problems in

> > some realms of commercial milk's many maladies.

>

> And I sent a link to the " SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IN FAVOR OF RAW

MILK " at

> http://www.karlloren.com/aajonus/p15.htm

>

> These were her thoughts on it:

>

> > The many reports of milk's links to cancer in this paper are

quite true --

> > they report these as associated with " pasteurized mik " when in

fact most

> > (all?) of these studies are just measuring " milk. " There's no way

to describe

> > these as things that would not happen with raw milk. It's making

pasteurized

> > milk sound bad -- i.e. worse than raw milk, when there's no proof

whatsoever

> > that raw milk wouldn't do the same thing. There are a few

theories throughout

> > the link you provided as to why specific cancers or cancer

pathways may not

> > occur with raw milk, but they're just theories at this point. I

do hope that

> > controlled studies/epidemiologic examinations take place in the

future as more

> > and more raw milk drinkers abound. It will be interesting.

> >  

> > If raw milk truly has galactase (I can't find anythign to truly

support or

> > deny this), then the galactose from milk's lactose shouldn't

cause cataracts

> > and ovarian cancers, as it is suspected to do from pasteurized

milk. It's a

> > little questionable as to whether it's actually in there though,

as some sites

> > claim that raw cow's milk contains lactase, and I know that human

milk does

> > not and found one government description of raw cow's milk

stating that it

> > does not. An online and medline search to find galactase in cow's

milk gave me

> > nothing to cling to.

> >  

> > I did find this, unfortunately, as I work with many milk

> > allergics/intolerants:

> > Raw untreated cow's milk and unhomogenized cow's milk is as

allergenic as

> > normal pasteurized and homogenized milk products. 

>

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Ab

> stract & list_uids=7704117

> >  

> > AND in another study:  upon " oral challenge the three different

processed milk

> > types provoked significant and similar allergic reactions in each

child, "  

>  

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Ab

> stract & list_uids=3284399

> >  

> > It also kindof blows at least part of the altered protein

theories of the raw

> > milk claims.

[Guest guest]

>>>I post info. about kefir, fermenting food and brix, but most of the time it

falls on

deaf ears.

Oh well--I guess my hopes of getting local people IRL interested in

the things I'm interested in is just not going to pan out.<<<

When I'm in that sort of situation, I tell myself that, although these people

may not be ready to accept that information yet, you never know when it might

click. Often we need to hear info many times, from many different sources before

we start to think 'well maybe there IS something to it'. You might not get many

responses on the list, but it may just get someone's cogs turning.

Don't give up!!!

Cheers,

Tas'.

[Guest guest]

Well Naomi,

I can't help you with the raw milk data, but I can tell you to be careful

posting on Raw Dairy..

charlene

-- Argument about raw milk from another group

I'm arguing with someone from one of my local about the

benefits of raw milk. She posts articles regularly from the NotMilk.com

site, and articles touting the wonders of soy.

I'm hoping I could get some feedback on some of her thoughts that I can post

to the group. I also sent this to the Raw Dairy group, but since I just

joined and haven't been formally introduced, I think my posts may not show

up until the waiting period is over.

Any thoughts/comments are appreciated, as I'm new to a lot of the

nutritional information regarding raw dairy and NT-style eating.

Naomi

She wrote:

> > " the more dairy a person consumes, worldwide, the more bone fractures --

hands

> > down "

Someone said:

> > I have read that this is true for pasteurized milk, but not raw milk.

Her reply:

> Are there any studies you know of? I think it's just assumption at this

point

> -- doesn't make it wrong, but I don't know. hmmm, maybe if I search under

> " farmers " and osteoporosis I can find something. I know they dring a lot

of

> their own raw milk because they get a lot of leukemia.

She posted:

> My problem with the raw milk is that there are just no good studies yet

(it's

> not popular enough yet) to show that people aren't having the same

problems in

> some realms of commercial milk's many maladies.

And I sent a link to the " SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IN FAVOR OF RAW MILK " at

http://www.karlloren.com/aajonus/p15.htm

These were her thoughts on it:

> The many reports of milk's links to cancer in this paper are quite true --

> they report these as associated with " pasteurized mik " when in fact most

> (all?) of these studies are just measuring " milk. " There's no way to

describe

> these as things that would not happen with raw milk. It's making

pasteurized

> milk sound bad -- i.e. worse than raw milk, when there's no proof

whatsoever

> that raw milk wouldn't do the same thing. There are a few theories

throughout

> the link you provided as to why specific cancers or cancer pathways may

not

> occur with raw milk, but they're just theories at this point. I do hope

that

> controlled studies/epidemiologic examinations take place in the future as

more

> and more raw milk drinkers abound. It will be interesting.

>

> If raw milk truly has galactase (I can't find anythign to truly support or

> deny this), then the galactose from milk's lactose shouldn't cause

cataracts

> and ovarian cancers, as it is suspected to do from pasteurized milk. It's

a

> little questionable as to whether it's actually in there though, as some

sites

> claim that raw cow's milk contains lactase, and I know that human milk

does

> not and found one government description of raw cow's milk stating that it

> does not. An online and medline search to find galactase in cow's milk

gave me

> nothing to cling to.

>

> I did find this, unfortunately, as I work with many milk

> allergics/intolerants:

> Raw untreated cow's milk and unhomogenized cow's milk is as allergenic as

> normal pasteurized and homogenized milk products.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Ab

stract & list_uids=7704117

>

> AND in another study: upon " oral challenge the three different processed

milk

> types provoked significant and similar allergic reactions in each child, "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Ab

stract & list_uids=3284399

>

> It also kindof blows at least part of the altered protein theories of the

raw

> milk claims.

[Guest guest]

> >I post info. about kefir, fermenting food and brix, but most of

> >the time it falls on deaf ears.

> >

>> Oh well--I guess my hopes of getting local people IRL interested in

>> the things I'm interested in is just not going to pan out.<<<

>

>

> When I'm in that sort of situation, I tell myself that, although

these people may not be

ready to accept that information yet, you never know when it might

click. Often we need to

hear info many times, from many different sources before we start to

think 'well maybe

there IS something to it'. You might not get many responses on the

list, but it may just get

someone's cogs turning.

>

> Don't give up!!!

I agree that sometimes you do have to post about a subject multiple

times before it starts to sink in.

I'm feeling discouraged because it seems like most members of even my

local NT group don't get it--they post things like how they don't eat saturated

fats

or meat.

We were starting to get a small group of people together to take

turns driving out to the

farmers in the boondocks to buy organic raw goat's milk, but after

the list owner and I

took our turns getting it, the interest fizzled (yes, I'm feeling

sour grapes about the whole thing).

So I'm back to getting Organic Pastures' raw milk at the HFS. It's

good quality, but I really

enjoyed the kefir and whey from the goat's milk (not to mention that

it was only $5 a gallon).

Naomi

[Guest guest]

> Well Naomi,

> I can't help you with the raw milk data, but I can tell you to be careful

> posting on Raw Dairy..

> charlene

>

This makes me curious--what do I need to be careful about? They've been very

welcoming over there.

Naomi

[Guest guest]

You could devote many lifetimes to the study of the human body and

you would still come up short. Unlike the most advanced computer or

space station, the human body was created by God/evolution. It is

unfathomly complicated. IMHO, it is a waste of time to try and break

down the workings of the human body into things we can comprehend

like lactose and fat molecules and this does this and that does

that. You will only end up confusing yourself, or even worse, coming

up with a false conclusion. I still enjoy reading about new studies

and their take on the workings of the human body, but that is just

one person's limited perspective on a specific part of the body.

Why not rely on the real world studies of thousands of generations of

human beings? Raw milk was good enough for my ancestors, so it's

good enough for me. I used to go from study to study, too. Soymilk

was good...nope soymilk is bad. Margarine is good...nope margarine

is bad. Eggs are good, now their bad, now they're good again. From

now on, I look to my ancestors. I have to skip a few generations.

My parents are all off track. My grandparents have a few good

habits, but are starting to believe the propaganda as well. Now, I

must look into the history books, the old cookbooks, the ancient ways

of doing things.

To help with your question, Naomi, I would put the burden of proof on

her. Raw milk has already been proven. Not by corrupt scientists

and slimy politicians, but by almost 10,000 years of use. How long

is the longest study on soy? Soy is very new. It was just

introduced into America in the 20th century, I believe. It has not

been consumed on a large basis throughout the world except in

fermented form. And there are plenty of studies that show it is NOT

a healthy food.

On another note, most of today's farmers never drink their own milk.

The state ag departments frown upon it heavily. So her assumption

proves your case that most of the bad information about milk is based

on pastuerized, homogenized milk, not fresh, raw milk.

-

>

> > > " the more dairy a person consumes, worldwide, the more bone

fractures --

> hands

> > > down "

>

> Someone said:

>

> > > I have read that this is true for pasteurized milk, but not raw

milk.

>

> Her reply:

>

> > Are there any studies you know of? I think it's just assumption

at this point

> > -- doesn't make it wrong, but I don't know. hmmm, maybe if I

search under

> > " farmers " and osteoporosis I can find something. I know they

dring a lot of

> > their own raw milk because they get a lot of leukemia.

[Guest guest]

I replied with some of the excellent facts people suggested I use. She admitted

that she didn't know who the Swiss Valley people were. Then, she posted a

newsletter from that horrible NotMilk site. Gee, can that guy be any more

melodramatic? I can't take anything he says seriously.

I am this close to just unsubbing from that list. I wish there was a way they

could just keep me abreast of important local news & information.

Naomi

" bturn25 " <bturn25@...> wrote:

To help with your question, Naomi, I would put the burden of proof on

her. Raw milk has already been proven. Not by corrupt scientists

and slimy politicians, but by almost 10,000 years of use. How long

is the longest study on soy? Soy is very new. It was just

introduced into America in the 20th century, I believe. It has not

been consumed on a large basis throughout the world except in

fermented form. And there are plenty of studies that show it is NOT

a healthy food.