Re: Raw MIlk Scientific Studies

[Guest guest]

Hi, I'm curious, what do you mean when you say a study is not " up-to-date "

and a reference is " outdated " ?

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 8:46 AM, geoffp0115 <geoffpurcell@...>wrote:

> Hello,

>

> I've been doing some work on the raw foodism page on wikipedia, and

> wanted to add references to any scientific studies on raw dairy.

> Despite there being all sorts of pro-raw-dairy campaign groups, all I

> found were one or two scientific studies re raw dairy-consumption

> being linked to a lowered risk of allergies and asthma, and a

> realmilk.com info-webpage with very

> outdated references to scientific studies from the 1940s. Needless to

> say, the latter was deleted as it was not up-to-date.

>

>

--

Alan

[Guest guest]

On 1/1/09, Alan <alanmjones@...> wrote:

> Hi, I'm curious, what do you mean when you say a study is not " up-to-date "

> and a reference is " outdated " ?

I'm also curious. I'm a PhD student in Nutritional Science and I

can't even figure out what that is supposed to mean.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> > Hi, I'm curious, what do you mean when you say a study is not

" up-to-date "

> > and a reference is " outdated " ?

>

> I'm also curious. I'm a PhD student in Nutritional Science and I

> can't even figure out what that is supposed to mean.

>

> Chris

>

The most mystifying rebuttal that people give when I am trying to

teach Dr. Price's work to them is pretty much like this. " Oh, there's

been plenty of research since then. " There sure has. None of it has

managed to prove that crooked teeth are anything other than a symptom

of poor nutrition, though.

Mike

[Guest guest]

FYI, here's the wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism

And here's the reference that was deleted:

http://www.realmilk.com/abstractsmilk.html

Just because a study is " old " (whatever that means) doesn't mean it's

invalid. If there's valid criticism of them, tho, let's hear it.

--

Alan