Re: Calves fed pasteurized milk (here we go again :-) was: skimming the fat in chicken stock - why?

[Guest guest]

Suze,

> I don't know how else " calves fed pasteurized milk die before maturity " can

> be interpreted. In any event, below are two posts from the chapterleader

> list that shed more light on this. Keep in mind that my main complaint in

> all of this is that the statement that was in the WAPF literature " calves

> fed pasteurized milk die before maturity " is simply inaccurate based on the

> results of this one study in which only *2* calves died before maturity

> (assuming 90 days is the maturity mark designated by the researchers).

That's kind of embarassing to see me support so staunchly a pretty

inaccurate statement, although I would still agree that the type of

language " In one study, 3 out of 8, ... while 8 out of 8 .... " and so

on is unnecessarily wordy for a line in a pamphlet. I have no idea

what it got changed to (or is getting changed to?) but I think you

could probably say something like " Calves fed exclusively on

pasteurized milk suffer ill health, sometimes dying before maturity,

while calves fed exclusively on raw milk possess vibrant health. "

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

>That's kind of embarassing to see me support so staunchly a pretty

>inaccurate statement,

Urk, sorry about that! I didn't mean to embarrass you by posting that here.

My intent was simply to grab a representative post of the discussion about

this topic from the chapterleaders list and that was the first post that

came up from my quiry and seemed to convey the details of the discussion.

And since it referenced Ron's post about the study in question, I went and

grabbed that one so we could see what the statement was based on in the

first place. It didn't occur to me at all that it would be embarrassing :-(

although I would still agree that the type of

>language " In one study, 3 out of 8, ... while 8 out of 8 .... " and so

>on is unnecessarily wordy for a line in a pamphlet.

Yes, I agree.

I have no idea

>what it got changed to (or is getting changed to?) but I think you

>could probably say something like " Calves fed exclusively on

>pasteurized milk suffer ill health, sometimes dying before maturity,

>while calves fed exclusively on raw milk possess vibrant health. "

Sally posted what she changed it to, but I forgot what it was. I just looked

for it, didn't find it but found the post in which she said she'd change it,

fwiw:

http://onibasu.com/archives/cl/1707.html?highlight=calves%20fed%20pasteurize

d%20milk%20Sally

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>My intent was simply to grab a representative post of the discussion about

>this topic from the chapterleaders list and that was the first post that

>came up from my quiry

Ugh! My turn to be embarrassed! I forgot to run a spell check on this batch

of posts. I just suck at spelling. I can understand misspelling " Novocain " ,

which I did, but " query " ???? LOL

Suze

[Guest guest]

Suze,

> Urk, sorry about that! I didn't mean to embarrass you by posting that here.

> My intent was simply to grab a representative post of the discussion about

> this topic from the chapterleaders list and that was the first post that

> came up from my quiry and seemed to convey the details of the discussion.

> And since it referenced Ron's post about the study in question, I went and

> grabbed that one so we could see what the statement was based on in the

> first place. It didn't occur to me at all that it would be embarrassing :-(

Oh, that's ok. I guess I was using " embarssing " kind of loosely. I

didn't mean it bothered me.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Suze Fisher

>

> >My intent was simply to grab a representative post of the discussion

> >about this topic from the chapterleaders list and that was the first

> >post that came up from my quiry

>

> Ugh! My turn to be embarrassed! I forgot to run a spell check

> on this batch of posts. I just suck at spelling. I can

> understand misspelling " Novocain " , which I did, but " query " ???? LOL

The only thing coming up from my quiry is quirtz.