Re: New Theory... - politics

[Guest guest]

bianca3 wrote:

" Pasteur was wrong, a poor scientist, and unethical to boot. His germ

theory came to prominence for reasons that had nothing to do with

science. "

excellent point - this continues today. brilliant scientists shunned for

politically incorrect ideas while others are placed on a pedestal, poor data

in hand - but, data that supports the pharmaceutical industry. an excellent

example Duesberg's claim that HIV has no causal relationship to

AIDS, - he was blacklisted while others were given their own research

institutions. another example is Linus ing and his work with vitamin C.

worse yet are the small incidences - those that receive no publicity - like

the information that is selected for textbooks - supporting the ideas of a

few while ignoring contradictory data from others with less power.

terrible, these books are used to educate children, college students,

graduate and medical students. very few question what is in them.

will America ever move forward in its understanding of health while under

these political and financial forces that degrade the very education

designed to enlighten us?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/26/02 7:39:37 PM Central Standard Time, bianca3@...

writes:

> Chi,

>

> In your opinion, given the type of cow breeding going on, would goats be

> better for milk or do you think this is a bunch of hype. I know in my

> experience goat milk produced much greater success, but maybe it was due

> to other factors.

>

> Bianca

>

Bianca,

You've not asked me the question but being the proud owner of approximately

20 dairy goats I thought I'd tell you that most any breeder tries with all

their might to breed an animal which will produce more milk. Our " brush "

goats give about 1/2 gallon a day. The " good " goats give close to 2 gallons

at peak and a bit more than a gallon through most of their lactation.

Don't see much difference in what we're doing to goats and what we've done

with cows.

Belinda

LaBelle Acres

www.labelleacres.com

[Guest guest]

> excellent point - this continues today. brilliant

> scientists shunned for politically incorrect ideas while

> others are placed on a pedestal, poor data in hand -

> but, data that supports the pharmaceutical industry.

> an excellent example Duesberg's claim that HIV has

> no causal relationship to AIDS, - he was blacklisted while

> others were given their own research institutions. another

> example is Linus ing and his work with vitamin C.

> worse yet are the small incidences - those that receive

> no publicity - like the information that is selected

> for textbooks - supporting the ideas of a few while ignoring

> contradictory data from others with less power.

> terrible, these books are used to educate children

> , college students, graduate and medical students

> . very few question what is in them.

Well said Deanna.

> will America ever move forward in its understanding

> of health while under these political and financial forces

> that degrade the very education designed to enlighten us?

Not much of a chance. Looking at 'health' care, which isn't

interested in health, and agriculture, which isn't interested in

nutrition, it looks like things will continue to get worse in America

before getting better. American education is better brainwashing than

the best brainwashing the Russians ever had. Why? Just ask an

American if he/she is brainwashed. The first step in overcoming

brainwashing is recognizing that you have been brainwashed.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi,

When I first got on this list, there was a lot of back and forth about

soil fertility, nutrition and so on and it was quite contentious. But I

enjoyed it and learned a lot. My question is outside of Albrecht and

Gerson, whom I've read, who would you recommend reading on this topic?

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:55:30 -0000 " soilfertility "

<ynos@...> writes:

> excellent point - this continues today. brilliant

> scientists shunned for politically incorrect ideas while

> others are placed on a pedestal, poor data in hand -

> but, data that supports the pharmaceutical industry.

> an excellent example Duesberg's claim that HIV has

> no causal relationship to AIDS, - he was blacklisted while

> others were given their own research institutions. another

> example is Linus ing and his work with vitamin C.

> worse yet are the small incidences - those that receive

> no publicity - like the information that is selected

> for textbooks - supporting the ideas of a few while ignoring

> contradictory data from others with less power.

> terrible, these books are used to educate children

> , college students, graduate and medical students

> . very few question what is in them.

Well said Deanna.

> will America ever move forward in its understanding

> of health while under these political and financial forces

> that degrade the very education designed to enlighten us?

Not much of a chance. Looking at 'health' care, which isn't

interested in health, and agriculture, which isn't interested in

nutrition, it looks like things will continue to get worse in America

before getting better. American education is better brainwashing than

the best brainwashing the Russians ever had. Why? Just ask an

American if he/she is brainwashed. The first step in overcoming

brainwashing is recognizing that you have been brainwashed.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> My question is outside of Albrecht and Gerson, whom I've read,

> who would you recommend reading on this topic?

" Soil Grass and Cancer " by Andre Voisin. It's available from Acres

U.S.A. It documents specific relationships between minerals in the

soil and diseases of animals and man. Perhaps the most interesting is

the relationship between cancer and copper in the soil. As you will

see after reading the book (translated into English in 1959), it has

had no effect on cancer research. Preventing cancer would be bad for

business.

Speaking of the copper in the soil, you will see the importance of

copper in bones and the importance of copper in heme formation. Then

read Chapter 9, " Copper deficiency caused by nitrogenous fertilizers " .

Many people are aware of the importance of zinc in prostate problems,

but how about the importance of zinc in diabetes?

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi,

In your opinion, given the type of cow breeding going on, would goats be

better for milk or do you think this is a bunch of hype. I know in my

experience goat milk produced much greater success, but maybe it was due

to other factors.

Bianca

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:39:41 -0000 " soilfertility "

<ynos@...> writes:

Speaking of the copper in the soil, you will see the importance of

copper in bones and the importance of copper in heme formation. Then

read Chapter 9, " Copper deficiency caused by nitrogenous fertilizers " .

Many people are aware of the importance of zinc in prostate problems,

but how about the importance of zinc in diabetes?

Chi

[Guest guest]

> Chi,

> In your opinion, given the type of cow breeding going on,

> would goats be better for milk or do you think this

> is a bunch of hype. I know in my experience goat milk produced

> much greater success, but maybe it was due to other factors.

Hi Bianca:

I am not surprised that you would have obtained better results with

goat's milk rather than cow's milk. But I don't think this is because

the goat has any advantage over the cow in producing milk of high

nutritional value.

One factor would certainly be the type of cow breeding going on, but

there are other factors at work too. With the exception of a few

farmers which includes the farmers who post here, most dairy cows are

pushed in various ways for maximum production. They are bred too

early and pushed so hard they only last a few lactations, or less. If

someone has goats, this person must have a different point of view on

production volume. If production was the issue, they would choose

cows instead of goats. So I would expect, over all, goats would be

more liable to be kept in circumstances that would lead to their milk

being, on average, better nutritionally than most of today's cow's

milk.

However, if the population at large ever wants milk of high

nutritional value, I think the cow with her higher volume of milk

than the goat would be better able to produce enough high nutritional

quality milk that the large population would require. Remember, the

clinical experiments Price did in the 1930's were done with a high

vitamin butter oil produced by cows in the 1930's. So it would appear

obvious that a 1930's version dairy cow is sufficient to produce the

nutrition required. The question is, of course, where do you find a

1930's vintage dairy cow? It would be interesting to compare the

average milk production per lactation of a 1930's dairy cow with a

modern dairy animal. Then one might wonder how, with the volume

increase, would it be possible to maintain nutritional quality.

It may be that blue whales produce a more nutritious milk than cows

milk, I don't know. To keep blue whales for commercial milk

production may be more difficult than keeping cows, particularly if

you are 5'3 " and you have to milk the blue whale. So, sticking with

Price's evidence based on butter production from 1930's cows, it

would seem the higher milk production of a cow over a goat and the

sufficient nutritional value the 1930's cow produces in the right

circumstances which Price explains, is the best bet for supplying

enough milk to nourish modern populations.

Chi

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:42:18 EST bilherbs@... writes:

InBianca,

You've not asked me the question but being the proud owner of

approximately

20 dairy goats I thought I'd tell you that most any breeder tries with

all

their might to breed an animal which will produce more milk. Our " brush "

goats give about 1/2 gallon a day. The " good " goats give close to 2

gallons

at peak and a bit more than a gallon through most of their lactation.

Don't see much difference in what we're doing to goats and what we've

done

with cows.

Belinda

LaBelle Acres

www.labelleacres.com

Belinda,

Do you drink goat or cow's milk?

Bianca