Is pasteurized milk really bad?

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:17:42 -0800 (PST) Roman <r_rom@...> writes:

I've read in NT or WAPF site about experiments in

which calves were fed pasteurized milk and died

because of it. So when talking to somebody who I

though might know someone with a milking goat or cow,

I was asked why I was looking so hard for raw milk.

Previously she had told me that she fed her baby sheep

with goat milk. I told her that according to those

experiments, her sheep would die if she had used

pasteurized milk. Her answer surprised me -- she said

that she'd even fed her sheep with powdered milk (I

take it that was cow's milk as I've never heard of

powdered goat's milk) mixed with water, and she didn't

noticed any adverse effects. Are we using good science

here? Has anyone confirmed truthfulness of the reports

of the experiments? Did the calves really die? Or

maybe sheep are more resistant?

ME:

Roman,

Would you be so kind as to supply the references from NT or WAPF and the

actual cite for the experiments? I think that would be of great help

before diving into these waters.

I am confused again. Since many kids are brought up on

baby formulas based on pasteurized milk, this kind of

milk does have some merits. This applies to other

cooked foods. The best conclusion I can come with to

reconcile everything I know, is toxins and decreased

nutrient content that may be caused by cooking foods

is only one factor in developing diseases. Duh! That's

trivial. Some apparently benefit a lot from these

foods, and some don't (e.g. allergies).

ME:

I'm not sure I see the correlation you are drawing here. Surviving on

less than optimal foods is not the same as benefiting from them. I think

all of us here have survived a whole bunch of less than optimal dietary

choices, including pasteurized milk. Many of us are in various states of

ill health as a result if we are to believe Dr. Price and numerous

others.

I also don't think allergies is the litmus test as to whether a food is

beneficial or detrimental. A lack of allergies to a particular food

doesn't make it okay. Nor would I necessarily put cooking and

pasteurization in the same category, seems to me you would have to define

cooking so we would know what you mean by the term. Kind of like the

difference between lightly sauteing and deep frying for example.

Maybe, as

Bianca has said, the very sick ones will benefit the

most from not eating cooked food.

ME: But this is true of any " self improvement " approach. People who get

the greatest return on exercise, at least initially, are those who are

the most out of shape, for example. They better shape you get in the

harder it is to reap huge results. The law of diminishing returns begins

to set in. But that doesn't invalidate the activity for the better

conditioned (or for eating the better diet), it just illustrates that

results aren't infinite in any area of human activity.

I am arriving at

conclusion that eating cooked food, including

pasteurized milk, is OK if it doesn't seem to cause

problems.

ME: All kinds of folks cannot tolerate pasteurized milk, me included. I

can't even tolerate raw milk if the diet of the animal is largely grain.

I like what AV says at some point in his book (and this is a crude

paraphrase) " if you have no health problems and are perfectly adjusted to

the S.A.D. diet, then keep on doing what you are doing, this book is not

for you. "

Bianca

[Guest guest]

Another clip from Beyond Veg as to why pasteurized milk might be bad:

Other toxic effects of cooking

Heated Milk Protein

It is possible that heated milk protein may be a factor in

atherosclerosis [nd 1971, 1972, 1986].

Someone willing to run down these references? Might time is up for the

moment :-)

[Guest guest]

Then this should be the testimonial for raw milk. Not an untrue one that states

pasteurized milk kills calves. If a blatant untrue statement is made, then

people will tend to ignore everything else.

> > I also agree. What fascinates me about the vegan websites is the

> > culture and the groupthink. I'd hate to see us WAPers do that. We

> > need everything we say about nutrition to be bombproof.

> >

> > And besides, its a win/win situation. If we're wrong about some

> > things - and we probably are - then that's just one less headache!

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

> ME:

>

> Roman,

>

> Would you be so kind as to supply the references from NT or WAPF

and the

> actual cite for the experiments? I think that would be of great help

> before diving into these waters.

Yes. That's a good suggestion, and for a moment I though I had

confused things when I couldn't find the exact statement on the WAPF

site. But then I found it on the RealMilk site. Here's the findings:

- http://www.realmilk.com/what.html: " Calves fed pasteurized milk die

before maturity. " -- the only one about pasteurized milk killing

calves.

-

http://www.westonaprice.org/nutrition_guidelines/butter.html: " Calves

fed butter substitutes sicken and die before reaching maturity. "

and " Calves fed pasteurized milk or skim milk develop joint stiffness

and do not thrive. " I am not sure about calves, but sheep seem to do

just fine, according to the person I had mentioned.

> ME:

>

> I'm not sure I see the correlation you are drawing here. Surviving

on

> less than optimal foods is not the same as benefiting from them.

Isn't being able to survive on a food means that that food provides

some benefits? I think it does. Hence, it's incorrect to say (I think

I've read this statement from someone on this board) that cooked

foods only cause degeneration. Maybe I don't remember the statements

well and misinterpreted them.

Roman

[Guest guest]

Hey folks I think you are missing one important point about pastuerized milk and

its effect on calves.

99 % of calves in this country are only fed/colostrum/raw milk/ milk replacer/or

pastureized milk for only 13 days max(its the most cost effect time frame and i

don't promote it)

Calves at the end of 14 days are already on grain and water when the milk is

pulled.

If a calf is fed pastuerized milk alone for 6 months as in the natural setting

it will die.

You can feed a calf to 2 years on raw milk and it will be enormus and a very

expensive calf but no doubt good eating, or a very good milker herself.

you can feed milk replacer for 30 days but most calves wean themselves after

about 3 weeks on the stuff if the are offered grain hay and water.

we have adopted a 30 day raw milk diet along with oats and whole corn for steer

calves 12 weeks for heifers of raw milk and grain hay and water optional they

will continue to drink the raw milk even

after they eat grain and hay

a sad note on the calf mortality rate due to rbgh

the death rate if you are doing a good job of healthy cows and their offspring

is about 7 to 10% for calves. On a farm of 600 cows (due to expand to 1200

soon) is 40% they are very high on rBGH and are

constantly buying cows and what calfs they do get from the cows they buy most

die in 24 hours.

They are to the point they cant even get cows bred back any more due to the rbgh

use prior to calving.

It was meant to be used 75 days to 150 days of a cows lactation.

Alittle is good more must be better! Right..

alecwood wrote:

> Then this should be the testimonial for raw milk. Not an untrue one that

states pasteurized milk kills calves. If a blatant untrue statement is made,

then people will tend to ignore everything else.

>

>

> > > I also agree. What fascinates me about the vegan websites is the

> > > culture and the groupthink. I'd hate to see us WAPers do that. We

> > > need everything we say about nutrition to be bombproof.

> > >

> > > And besides, its a win/win situation. If we're wrong about some

> > > things - and we probably are - then that's just one less headache!

> > >

> > >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:01:43 -0000 " r_rom " <r_rom@...> writes:

Yes. That's a good suggestion, and for a moment I though I had

confused things when I couldn't find the exact statement on the WAPF

site. But then I found it on the RealMilk site. Here's the findings:

- http://www.realmilk.com/what.html: " Calves fed pasteurized milk die

before maturity. " -- the only one about pasteurized milk killing

calves.

ME: Thanks Roman! What I need to find out now is who Sally is citing so I

can look at the study. I think it is out of bounds to dismiss Sally's

comments as in error without first seeing what she is referring too.

Nor am I inclined to take the word of the lady you were talking too

without further investigation. There are too many missing variables here

for me to draw any firm conclusions.

<snip>

> ME:

>

> I'm not sure I see the correlation you are drawing here. Surviving

on

> less than optimal foods is not the same as benefiting from them.

Isn't being able to survive on a food means that that food provides

some benefits? I think it does. Hence, it's incorrect to say (I think

I've read this statement from someone on this board) that cooked

foods only cause degeneration. Maybe I don't remember the statements

well and misinterpreted them.

ME: If you mean the human body can survive the onslaught of less than

optimal foods by drawing out some nutritional substance from these same

foodstuffs then I would reply by saying, " of course " . This is true even

of foods that we all agree are bad for us. But the negatives FAR outweigh

the positives and over time will show up as ill health for many of us. I

don't think anyone here is arguing that *some* benefits cannot be gained

from even poor foods. The question is what is their benefit long term.

Second, one *could* say that cook foods cause degeneration and still

argue that benefits can be derived from them (at least in the short

term). It is no different than making the same comment about junk foods.

Clearly the body can derive *some* benefit from these *foodstuffs*

although certainly not thrive on them long term.

But now I'm confused because I don't see this argument (about cooked

foods) being made in this thread. Again I say many who would argue that

certain kinds of cooking is good would nevertheless argue that

*pasteurization* of milk is bad. In other words, while cooking meat is

okay (depending on how its cooked) pasteurizing milk is *always* a

compromise nutritionally speaking.

I think we need to refine our categories as to what exactly we are

talking about. Is it cooked milk or cooked meat? We know what we are

getting with cooked milk (the process is fairly uniform), but cooked meat

is a far more wide ranging category (from very rare to well done - from

lightly sauteing to deep fried) and probably should be left out of this

thread.

Just my thoughts for whatever its worth.

Bianca

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:09:00 -0600 Clearview Acres <clearvu@...>

writes:

If a calf is fed pastuerized milk alone for 6 months as in the natural

setting it will die.

ME: This is an extremely helpful statement and indicates to me why we

should proceed with caution on this thread before we actually know how

the experiments were conducted. Perhaps this is what they did. Does

anyone know at this point? I don't think so. So lets give Sally the

benefit of the doubt until we know for sure otherwise.

Right now all we have is the testimony of one lady and even that may

contain far more variables than we are currently privy too. Now we have

another farmer telling us that calves *will* die if fed only pasteurized

milk. I think we need to slow down a bit before we charge Sally with an

unvalidated, unscientific statement. She could be wrong, but she might be

right too, and I need more than what I'm seeing so far before I dismiss

her statement as false.

Bianca

[Guest guest]

> Some farmers let the calves get colostrums from their mothers for

the

> first few feedings, but then are removed and put on milk replacer.

Doesn't the milk replacer cost money too? How exactly do they save

money?

Roman

[Guest guest]

> Doesn't the milk replacer cost money too? How exactly do they save

> money?

Roman and Carmen,

There are many ways that milk replacer can wind up being cheaper than fresh

milk.

One definite reason is that it is usually made primarily with by-products

such as whey and skim milk. It is rounded out in fat content by adding

by-product animal fats and cheaper vegetable fats.

I'm not sure, but it may also be made with lower grade milks that aren't

intended for human consumption. For example, I'm not certain, but I doubt

that batches of milk that are tested to have cell counts that are too high

for human consumption get used for things like milk replacer rather than

being destroyed.

In addition there are non-milk protein derived milk-replacers that are also

used. The proteins in these may come from soy, wheat, plasma, red blood

cells, or possibly other sources as well. See the following link for

examples of ingredient lists for various milk replacers for one brand:

http://www.straussfeeds.com/eng/products/main_products.html

Yet another reason why milk replacer might be cheaper is that it is milk

that has been converted from the perishable fluid form to the non-perishable

dried form. During seasons of production glut, excess milk and milk

by-products can be dried and made into products such as these which have a

shelf-life that allows them to be used year-round.

[Guest guest]

A farmer raising an animal for meat perhaps could economically let the

calves nurse from their mother; however, a dairy animal is another story. If

a dairy calf were aloud to nurse to it's heart content from their mother

there would be little milk available to sell. How else is the dairy farmer

to make a living if the calves are drinking the majority of his product? The

lady that said the organic farm had leftover milk for calves is an unusual

situation in a typical dairy setting. The entire crop of milk is hauled

away.

I agree the ideal would be for all calves to drink milk from there moms,

but it's not very practical if you are a farmer trying to make a living.

Perhaps farmers will find allowing calves to nurse longer pays off in the

longer run because they are healthier.

Some farmers let the calves get colostrums from their mothers for the

first few feedings, but then are removed and put on milk replacer. Some

farmers don't even let the calves have unpasteurized colostom because of

diseases passed through the milk to the offspring!

Carmen

Does

your

> common sense suggest to you that the offspring of these animals

> should have anything fed to them besides the unadulterated milk of

> their parents >>>>

[Guest guest]

Doesn't the milk replacer cost money too? How exactly do they save

money?

Roman

Hi Roman,

I've been thinking about the same thing. Plus the milk replacer should be

even more expensive because of all the handling and processing. Others

probably know more about this than I, but here is my guess. I think that

farmers are paid by the government somehow to compensate for the low prices

they get from selling milk. So the milk is more valuable if it's sold than

if it's used on the farm. The people actually buying the milk from the

farmer is still getting the milk at the lower price so can afford to process

it and sell it back to the farmer at a profit?!?!? This is speculation on my

part. Anyone else?

Carmen

[Guest guest]

It took you long enuf to chime in on this :-))))))))

Thanks.

DMM

>

> > Doesn't the milk replacer cost money too? How exactly do they

save

> > money?

> >

> > Roman

> >

> > Hi Roman,

> >

> > I've been thinking about the same thing. Plus the milk replacer

should be

> > even more expensive because of all the handling and processing.

Others

> > probably know more about this than I, but here is my guess. I

think that

> > farmers are paid by the government somehow to compensate for the

low prices

> > they get from selling milk. So the milk is more valuable if it's

sold than

> > if it's used on the farm. The people actually buying the milk

from the

> > farmer is still getting the milk at the lower price so can afford

to process

> > it and sell it back to the farmer at a profit?!?!? This is

speculation on my

> > part. Anyone else?

> >

> > Carmen

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi All

I have read about enough.

1. The gov. has a support price for milk. Since we started milking around 15

years ago to my knowledge milk price has not fell down to the support price. So

NO the gov. is not paying the dairyman. Instead of stating something false and

starting rumors how about researching the subject and making an educated guess.

2. We have fed milk replacer and whole milk. Calves do very well on both. They

do seem to do better on whole milk in my opinion. There are milk replacers that

are All Milk Products and there are milk replacers that are made up of animal

and plant ingredients. The " all milk " is made of whey and other milk byproducts

that are left over in the milk processing industry. The other milk replacers are

made up of whey and typically soy proteins. I have never fed these because in my

opinion soy proteins are not something to feed to calves. Not sure the all milk

products are the thing to use either but sometimes is necessary. They are both

cheaper than feeding milk because the are made up of byproducts. It costs

roughly $1.00 per day to feed milk replacer and roughly $2.00 per day to feed

raw milk. It is a no brainer as to why dairyman feed milk replacer. (Some

dairies feed as many as 50 to 100 calves per day.)

3. There are some dairies pasteurizing their milk for their calves to stop the

spread of disease. These are confinement dairies to the best of my knowledge. We

don't seem to have these problems on our grass based dairy.

All for now

Carmen wrote:

> Doesn't the milk replacer cost money too? How exactly do they save

> money?

>

> Roman

>

> Hi Roman,

>

> I've been thinking about the same thing. Plus the milk replacer should be

> even more expensive because of all the handling and processing. Others

> probably know more about this than I, but here is my guess. I think that

> farmers are paid by the government somehow to compensate for the low prices

> they get from selling milk. So the milk is more valuable if it's sold than

> if it's used on the farm. The people actually buying the milk from the

> farmer is still getting the milk at the lower price so can afford to process

> it and sell it back to the farmer at a profit?!?!? This is speculation on my

> part. Anyone else?

>

> Carmen

>

>

[Guest guest]

Pottenger's research with cats certainly demonstrated that raw milk is

essential for cats. Might it be that the additives in the milk replacer for

goats contains things that compensate for what is lacking in the pasteurized

milk? In other words, goats raised on the milk of their healthy mothers

would do well, but if they received just pasteurized goat milk without the

additives they would run into problems?

Peace,

Kris , gardening in northwest Ohio

----- Original Message -----

From: Carmen <ctn@...>

< >

Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:44 PM

Subject: RE: Re: Is pasteurized milk really bad?

> I think the issue here is not whether or not raw milk is better than

> pasteurized. I think the issue is trying to prove it by making outlandish

> statements like, " Calves fed pasteurized milk die before maturity. " Does

> anyone know how this statement actually came into being?

>

>

> Carmen

>

> <<<< mean time I think raw milk is a more sensible choice. The long

term

> facts may prove me wrong, but as of this moment there are certainly

> more irrefutable facts on the side of raw.

>

> DMM >>>>>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- In @y..., " Kris. " <Kris.@a...>

wrote:

> Pottenger's research with cats certainly demonstrated that raw milk

is

> essential for cats.

well, as beyondveg points out, cats eat cooked food all the time and

do fine. Pottengers experiments were not as well controlled as the

ones conducted today. You can read about it here:

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1h.shtml

[Guest guest]

-

Pottenger's experiment may have had some deficiencies, but there are

nonetheless problems with the rebuttal.

>>Was Pottenger's cooked diet detrimental because it was " dead " or simply

>>deficient? One might argue in response here that commercial feeds are not

>>simply cooked food--they are supplemented as well. But this, then, simply

>>demonstrates it is not that the food is somehow " dead " (as raw-fooders

>>often term cooked food) that is the underlying problem, but rather that

>>the diet fed by Pottenger was deficient in some way. And we shall see

>>later that cooked diets--in humans, at least--are not necessarily more

>>deficient than raw ones.

There are two problems with this. First, the author is essentially

discounting the fact that cooking in fact appeared to cause the food to be

nutritionally deficient. And second, he's treating raw-fooders as monolith

when they're not. Of course many raw-fooders have serious nutritional

deficiencies -- raw fooders tend, AFAIK, to be vegetarians and even

vegans. Do people eating a large amount of raw animal food have

deficiencies? I don't know for sure (though I imagine it depends on the

kind of RAF consumed) and the author doesn't address that question here.

>well, as beyondveg points out, cats eat cooked food all the time and

>do fine.

Again, " fine " is a matter of perspective. Many people on the SAD say

they're " fine " . From what I can tell, pets are increasingly unhealthy and

increasingly are diagnosed with all kinds of modern degenerative

diseases. Yes, many pets reproduce successfully, demonstrating that the

many supplements added to pet food are at least somewhat effective, but the

present health and life spans of pets simply don't compare to what they

could be.

>Pottengers experiments were not as well controlled as the

>ones conducted today.

True, they weren't perfectly controlled, but if you look at dietary

experiments today you'll find that there are many, many hidden assumptions

and other deficiencies. Overall, I don't know that I'd count Pottenger's

experiments less worthy than those of today.

-

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> Pottenger's experiment may have had some deficiencies, but there

are

> nonetheless problems with the rebuttal.

Pottengers cats was brought up within the context of pasteurized milk

killing calves, but it turns out that cooked food kills neither. Us

WAP types hypothesize that including some raw animal food in the diet

is healthy, but we don't have any evidence other than anthropology.

Either way, its a seperate debate. The underlying point is that what

we've been using as supportive evidence is not credible.

[Guest guest]

Yesterday I ate a buffalo patty from trader joe's -- raw. I had two defrosting

on the counter and my sig. other had to leave before dinnertime. The

packaging said all natural, no horomones, etc., and I speculated buffalo

would be grown on the range (or is it just the song?). So I thought, ok, this

is my chance to taste a little piece raw. Well it tasted so good I'll be damned

if I didn't put my whole patty in a bowl, then salted it, and ate it raw! It was

so yummy the idea of putting it in a pan and cooking it seemed ridiculous.

I've never liked raw veggies, but raw meat tasted like it was meant to be that

way. I so wish there were studies on this as I feel somewhat freakish eating

raw meat. I fibbed and acted like I had cooked it when my SO came home.

>

> Pottengers cats was brought up within the context of pasteurized milk

> killing calves, but it turns out that cooked food kills neither. Us

> WAP types hypothesize that including some raw animal food in the diet

> is healthy, but we don't have any evidence other than anthropology.

>

> Either way, its a seperate debate. The underlying point is that what

> we've been using as supportive evidence is not credible.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>>>well, as beyondveg points out, cats eat cooked food all the time and

do fine.

****Cats eating cooked and/or processed foods are doing *as fines as

Americans on a SAD diet.* If that's your definition of " fine. " They are

dying of the same degenerative diseases that we are. It's been theorized by

a friend (who manufactures raw dog and cat food) and a cat vet who have

researched cooked vs. raw for cats, that the Pottenger cats fed cooked foods

were taurine deficient, which led to their premature death. Until recent

years, commercial cat foods were deficient in taurine (which cats have a

relatively high requirment for) and a number of cats suffered blindness,

heart problems (probably death, too) as a result. Another " oops " for the pet

food industry and their 'complete and balanced formulas'.

Cooked foods are certainly *not* the best choice for recently domesticated

species such as the cat, any more than they are appropriate for other

domesticated animals (dogs, cows, goats, etc).

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://www.suscom-maine.net/~cfisher/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Come on you are a much more critical thinker than that.

Listen to your friends and family saying " Look at me I eat SAD and

I'm fine my grandparents did the same and they died at 80. Eating

this way we are " fine " . I am not speaking of the quality of

Pottengers research however look at the modern day domesticated cat

and the litany of ailments they suffer from. These animals are in no

way " fine " . I am not a raw foodist either. My point is not about

cooked or raw it's that here on this group you have clearly

demonstrated yourself to be very smart and impressed me with your

posts and at times have made observations that I have failed to make,

so please don't cop out like all of the completely misguided SAD

folks and pull out the " they're standing they're fine perspective. "

DMM

> > Pottenger's research with cats certainly demonstrated that raw

milk

> is

> > essential for cats.

>

> well, as beyondveg points out, cats eat cooked food all the time

and

> do fine. Pottengers experiments were not as well controlled as the

> ones conducted today. You can read about it here:

>

> http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1h.shtml

[Guest guest]

--- In @y..., " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

wrote:

> Come on you are a much more critical thinker than that.

> Listen to your friends and family saying " Look at me I eat SAD and

> I'm fine my grandparents did the same and they died at 80. Eating

> this way we are " fine " . I am not speaking of the quality of

> Pottengers research however look at the modern day domesticated cat

> and the litany of ailments they suffer from. These animals are in

no

> way " fine " . I am not a raw foodist either. My point is not about

> cooked or raw it's that here on this group you have clearly

> demonstrated yourself to be very smart and impressed me with your

> posts and at times have made observations that I have failed to

make,

> so please don't cop out like all of the completely misguided SAD

> folks and pull out the " they're standing they're fine perspective. "

Then where's the evidence? Pottengers cat's does not provide that

evidence. And we're making inaccurate claims when we say that calves

fed pasteurized milk die before maturity. Right now all we have for

evidence is WAP's anthropology, and the anecdotal experience of the

farmers in this group who have found that calves on raw milk are

healthier than calves on replacer and/or pasteurized milk.

However, it has yet to be demonstrated scientifically that cats,

calves and humans can live longer and be healthier on some other

diet. This goes to our recent concerns about being fair minded. We

cannot say " If cats/calves/humans eat this way, they will do better

than simply fine " - the burdon of proof is on us.

Don't get me wrong - the area's of WAP that have been examined

scientifically have been corroborated. E.g. trans-fats and

cholesterol. Because of this I'm convinced. I drink raw milk. But we

do have to recognize that its just a hypothesis.

[Guest guest]

> so please don't cop out like all of the completely misguided SAD

> folks and pull out the " they're standing they're fine perspective. "

>

> DMM

>

If people on the SAD, TAD and Low Fat are fine then why is Star Bucks so

popular? Do people need the constant caffien flow just to get through the day?

In my small semi rural community 25 miles north east of San Diego there are 6

Espresso shops within 3 miles of my house. One is a drive up so you can get your

buzz without getting out of the car (you wouldn't want to over exert your self

walking across the parking lot) Within the next 6 months Star Bucks has a plan

to open another store just 1 mile fromt their current location. I happen to

enjoy an occasional latte. I like the taste. But I am not addicted like most of

the adult population.

If people on SAD are Fine then why is 80% of Americans over the age of 25

overweight? Why is obesity in children a problem that didn't exist 20 years ago?

When I was in school there was maybe one fat kid in a class.

[Guest guest]

Well said alec but I was not implying that was saying that I

was just comparing that to his statement about the cats " being fine "

I don't think there is anyone on this list who would disagree with

you on this at all.

DMM

-- In @y..., " alecwood " <me@a...> wrote:

> --- In @y..., " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

wrote:

> > so please don't cop out like all of the completely misguided SAD

> > folks and pull out the " they're standing they're fine

perspective. "

> >

> > DMM

> >

> If people on the SAD, TAD and Low Fat are fine then why is Star

Bucks so popular? Do people need the constant caffien flow just to

get through the day? In my small semi rural community 25 miles north

east of San Diego there are 6 Espresso shops within 3 miles of my

house. One is a drive up so you can get your buzz without getting out

of the car (you wouldn't want to over exert your self walking across

the parking lot) Within the next 6 months Star Bucks has a plan to

open another store just 1 mile fromt their current location. I happen

to enjoy an occasional latte. I like the taste. But I am not addicted

like most of the adult population.

>

> If people on SAD are Fine then why is 80% of Americans over the age

of 25 overweight? Why is obesity in children a problem that didn't

exist 20 years ago? When I was in school there was maybe one fat kid

in a class.

[Guest guest]

-

>Yes, but they put their cards (studies) on the table to make their

>proof, so people like Uffe Ravnskov and Enig and check them out

>and see if two and two add up.

I don't know exactly how many studies are published annually, but I do know

that there are far too many for Uffe Ravnskov and Enig and their few

fellows in arms to keep on top of, and in far too many disciplines. I have

enough of a scientific and engineering education and background that I

fancy I'm better-equipped than most to examine and understand the truth of

many medical and biological studies (though obviously people like Ravnskov

and Enig are enormously better at it than I am!) but what I conclude more

often than not is that studies don't actually demonstrate ANYTHING one way

or another, and simply aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Did you read Dr. Byrnes' debate with that asinine fellow Dr.

Janson? Here's a particularly choice example from a comment by Dr. Janson:

>>A study by Dudrick using an animal model clearly showed regression of

>>atherosclerosis and reduction of cholesterol levels when intravenous

>>feeding of different amino acids similar to vegetable protein, and

>>progression with amino acids similar to meat protein.

I don't know which part of that statement is more appalling, the use of an

animal model, or the assumption that intravenous feeding of isolated amino

acids that " resemble " vegetable and animal proteins is supposed to indicate

anything about the results of eating actual whole animal and vegetable

feedings. I didn't dig up the study itself to see what animal model was

used, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the animal was an

herbivore. That's quite common in studies that purport to demonstrate the

harm of animal foods.

Of course, this particular study was in fact rebutted by Dr. Byrnes, though

how many people became aware of the rebuttal I don't know. But there are

other deceptions that are much more sophisticated. One that comes to mind,

though not one of the _really_ tricky ones, is a study financed, IIRC, by

the Spanish olive oil industry, which " demonstrated " that polyunsaturated

fat and saturated fat both cause progression of atherosclerotic lesions

while monounsaturated fat (i.e., yes, olive oil) causes a regression. Part

of the deception of the study involved the absurdly high amounts of fat fed

to the test subjects; nobody would or could eat that much fat, and nobody's

system evolved to handle such an overload. But the more sophisticated

deception in the study came from the timing. The subjects were fed first

one kind of fat, then another, then the third, and the timing of the

intervals was designed to allow body fat release to influence the

results! IOW, saturated fat was demonstrated to be harmful because of the

delayed effects of PUFAs, and monounsaturated fat was demonstrated to be

healthy because of the delayed effect of saturated fat! If you want I'll

try to dig up the cite. I might be slightly misremembering some of minor

details, but the general gist is correct.

>When we say that its common sense

>that " fine " isn't good enough, then we are not holding ourselves to

>the same level of accountability that we are expecting from people

>with opposing views. How does that make WAP look?

First of all, obviously it depends what's meant by " fine " . For people who

really are fine, of course you're correct. But as I'm sure you know,

people generally have an increasingly paupered view of what it is to feel

" fine " . The statistics on depression, heart disease, diabetes, and many

other ailments are sufficient to discredit any notion that most people are

" fine " .

More to the point, I'm getting the feeling you believe every post on this

board should be held to the same standards as a peer-reviewed article in a

medical journal or a book written by a health expert. If we're going to

put together a formal argument on a particular subject, absolutely, it

should be bulletproof. Yes, the realmilk.com statement about calf

fatalities on pasteurized milk should be qualified and footnoted. IIRC,

someone here said that calves fed _only_ pasteurized milk do in fact die,

but calves fed pasteurized milk and other foods too, like grass or grain,

survive, albeit in worse health than calves allowed to nurse. And that, or

whatever the actual fact is, needs to be on the site, because realmilk.com

is the sharp point of the wedge in the fight for raw milk. But for you to

totally dismiss Dr. Marasco's clinical experience with his patients'

response to pasteurized and raw dairy is a mistake, IMO. I don't want to

get into a big argument on epistemology, but I would like to point out that

many so-called clinical trials are conducted today in that very manner -- a

drug company pays a number of doctors to put some of their patients on a

particular drug, and then reports the results.

-

[Guest guest]

This is going to be my last post to this thread because it has not

been very productive. But I do want to summarize how I feel before I

bug out:

1. No, I don't think what people say on this list need go through a

peer review scrutiny or anything close to it. But anything on WAP or

realmilk should go through something that rigorous, if not more so.

2. Even in your last post you found yet another example of an

improper use of a study. We need to do the same. Otherwise we'll end

out just like the vegans, clutching a few favorite studies that

comfort us and refusing to accept challenges. I personally believe

that a willingness to examine all the evidence will support the

general principles of WAP. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, I want to find

that out.