Guest guest Posted September 29, 2006 Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/31200.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 On 9/30/06, Becky Kirby wrote: > > http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/31200.html > Wow, so much for objective journalism. And raw milk only stays fresh for 2 days?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 The link didn't work. I'm in the Sacramento area and about a year ago the Bee changed its website so that you have to register to view most of the stories. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Canfield Christian liberty should never be exercised at the expense of a Christian testimony. ~ Chappell " Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. " Galatians 6:7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 Do you think they meant at room temp? > > > > http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/31200.html > > > > Wow, so much for objective journalism. And raw milk only stays fresh > for 2 days?! > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 On 9/30/06, Steph <gasteph7@...> wrote: > On 9/30/06, Becky Kirby wrote: > > http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/31200.html > Wow, so much for objective journalism. It wouldn't be such a bad article if they'd have bothered to explain what it meant for E. coli to be " linked " to the dairy. It was linked in the sense that some people who had contracted E. coli had consumed milk from the dairy. But there was never any evidence that any of the milk was contaminated with E. coli. Had they stated that openly, it would have been a good article. Either way, it probably works out to free publicity for McAfee. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 On 9/30/06, haecklers wrote: > Do you think they meant at room temp? No, it says, " Refrigerated - stays fresh for 2 to 2 1/2 days " For pasteurized milk it says, " Refrigerated - stays fresh eight to 10 days. Ultrapasteurized milk can last longer. " They also call Mark McAfee a " maverick " , show a picture of him which makes him look angry, say that raw milk is " legal in only half of all states, " then later " still illegal in 25 states " . The writer is clearly biased against raw milk. At least it's not as bad as the false headline linked here: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/health/20060929-1631-ca-rawmilkrecall.html " RAW ORGANIC MILK THAT SICKENED CALIFORNIA CHILDREN NOW OK " > > > > > > > > http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/31200.html > > > > > > > Wow, so much for objective journalism. And raw milk only stays fresh > > for 2 days?! > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 > > > > The link didn't work. I'm in the Sacramento area and about a > year ago the Bee changed its website so that you have to > register to view most of the stories. Registration is free, and you can even get a user name and password for that and many other websites here: http://www.bugmenot.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 I added a comment to the article. My username is PokeyLoo. Let's see if it is approved and posted. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Canfield Christian liberty should never be exercised at the expense of a Christian testimony. ~ Chappell " Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. " Galatians 6:7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 > > >At least it's not as bad as the false headline linked here: >http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/health/20060929-1631-ca-rawmilkrecall.html I contacted them and asked them to print a statement that raw milk was not the cause of the recent cases of E. coli. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Canfield Christian liberty should never be exercised at the expense of a Christian testimony. ~ Chappell " Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. " Galatians 6:7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 I agree. They slandered OP and need to print a retraction and the true stuff. Does anyone have an " in " with that paper to print their own version - the true version? On Sep 30, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Masterjohn wrote: > On 9/30/06, Steph <gasteph7@...> wrote: >> On 9/30/06, Becky Kirby wrote: > >>> http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/31200.html > >> Wow, so much for objective journalism. > > It wouldn't be such a bad article if they'd have bothered to explain > what it meant for E. coli to be " linked " to the dairy. It was linked > in the sense that some people who had contracted E. coli had consumed > milk from the dairy. But there was never any evidence that any of the > milk was contaminated with E. coli. Had they stated that openly, it > would have been a good article. Either way, it probably works out to > free publicity for McAfee. > > Chris > -- > The Truth About Cholesterol > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.