Is pasteurized milk really bad?

March 24, 2002

I've just read through the 'pasteurization really bad?' thread with interest. I

appreciate the

points made here -- that blanket statements on the realmilk site, and on the WAP

site, must be

footnoted at least, and stated accurately or explained so that the statement

does not sound just

plain wrong, or worse, sensationalist, to most of our ears.

Also the point that statements that do not sound right and are not footnoted or

explained put us off

sharing these sites with friends. Also the wrong statements, or simplified

information (call them

wrong or simplified?), same thing.

I personally am also disturbed by the attitude that comes across in several

people's posts of " since

studies can be used to say anything at all, lets' not cite studies or hold our

heros to too high a

standard of truth or explanation " . This, as many in this thread have pointed

out, is the background

for diet-cults. There is no reason that something cannot be clearly explained,

footnoted, and, if

there is a question or ambiguity in the evidence, that this can also be stated.

We don't need

absolute answers to feel comfortable; we do need statements that assure us that

the people who

advise us are objective and ethical in their methods and communication.

Freezing meat for two weeks kills all parasites. Does it? Where is this

statement by the FDA that it

does--surely it should have been footnoted?

If I had written this book, I would have hired someone to freeze meat at normal,

home-freezing

temperatures and had the statement tested at a laboratory. Someone on this list

pointed out that the

meat must be frozen at far lower temperatures than we have available at home.

Vitamin B12 is not found in plants. This is not true, yet it is stated as truth

both in NT and in

Dr. Byrnes " Myths of Vegetarianism " . As someone on this thread so elequently

said, if you read a

website and find an untruth, you tend to discount the rest as well.

For instance, nutritional yeast has vitamin B12 added to it -- but the added B12

is a product of a

special strain of yeast. On Dr. Byrne's piece on vegetarianism, it sounds as if

the yeast is

supplemented by B12 from meat.

If you go back and review the thread we had on B12, you'll find a link to a site

showing that

spirulina also does contain true B12, as well as plant look-alikes. The theory

that the human body

cannot distinguish between B12 and plant look-alikes is also disputed here

convincingly.

There is also evidence that plants grown in soil rich in dung will be able to

store B12 in their

fiber.

No one argues that people need extra vitamin B12 on a vegan diet, such as

through nutritional yeast.

However, stating that " no B12 is found in plant sources " is wrong, and will

insult the vegetarian

and vegan readers who know better. It will make them feel that absolute

statements are being used

for sensationalist purposes. And perhaps they are? It will also make those of us

who quote Sally or

Byrnes feel like a fool when we are shown to be wrong.

Perhaps Fallon/Enig/Byrne do want a cult following? What I am missing here is a

signal of being

willing to not have all the answers. Whether on breastfeeding issues, soy, BSE,

calves and

pasteurized milk, or the availability of B12 in plant sources, there are nuances

that can and should

be communicated. If they are not communicated, the kinds of people who are

attracted will be

ignorant people who like easy answers, ie, those who seek a cult.

I was also very put off by Dr. Byrnes' " Myths of Vegetarianism " because it began

with a description

of a woman who has lost several pregnancies, but was able to maintain a

pregnancy after eating

animal foods.

Any doctor, from any branch of medicine, including homeopathy and allopathy,

will have had the

experience of being able to help a woman maintain pregnancy. This is a

non-example, and worse,

because it touches our deepest fears and hopes, it comes across as

sensationalistic.

I would not feel comfortable asking anyone I know to read this website, and I

can really understand

the vegetarian woman who caustically wrote Dr. Byrnes. If I were in her

position, and read first the

non-example with the mother and shortly after, the non-truth that B12 is not

available from plant

sources, I would feel insulted on many levels. " Here this guy wants to refute my

diet, and he

resorts to manipulative examples and lies? "

Such an important and provocative essay as " Myths of Vegetarianism " must be a

superb piece of

writing, completely ethical, nonsationalistic and precise in content and

subtlety. Otherwise it has

no business being published--it is an embarrassment to the movement.

In short -- I would also like the level of writing and communication lifted to a

higher standard on

the websites and in the books related to Price/Fallon/Enig.

And finally -- this was a hard post for me to write. I do not feel at all

comfortable in the role of

critiquer. It's because I like so much about NT that I would like to see its

representatives do

better. The diet-approach is strong enough on its own. It doesn't need an aura

of absolute answers

to succeed.

J.

March 24, 2002

-

>I personally am also disturbed by the attitude that comes across in

>several people's posts of " since

>studies can be used to say anything at all, lets' not cite studies or hold

>our heros to too high a

>standard of truth or explanation " .

If I've come off this way, it's unintentional. I do believe and know

studies can be constructed to say any darn thing, so we have to be VERY

aware that studies aren't automatically the be-all and end-all of

knowledge. And someone going out into the public with a dietary agenda

MUST be able to back up that agenda with rock-solid information.

But if we're casually talking here, and someone says, " look at all the sick

pets, why do you think they're sick? " I don't think it should be a

conversational requirement to provide 40 footnotes. If, by contrast,

someone's going to write a book on the subject, or create a website, it

ought to be extensively documented. Now, I haven't read it, but I assume

that Dr. Ian Billinghurst, founder of the BARF (Bones And Raw Food)

movement and author of _Give Your Dog A Bone_ and some other books,

documented his arguments in _GYDAB_. I also know he's right because I've

seen the difference in dog after dog. Dogs fed canned food and kibble do

OK, but they get rashes, they have dull coats, they get infirm as they age,

they're flabby, they get cancer, hip dysplasia, etc. etc. These are _not_

uncommon ailments. Dogs fed BARF, by contrast -- raw bones, raw meat, raw

organs, a little vegetable matter, etc. -- are incredibly healthy. They're

lean and muscular, and they don't suffer from those ailments as long as

they're not fed a bad diet like nothing but battery chicken wings. That's

enough for me to _know_ that BARF is correct, even though there may be some

details to be refined.

>Vitamin B12 is not found in plants. This is not true, yet it is stated as

>truth both in NT and in

>Dr. Byrnes " Myths of Vegetarianism " . As someone on this thread so

>elequently said, if you read a

>website and find an untruth, you tend to discount the rest as well.

Actually, to my knowledge it IS true. The problem is that many people

consider many compounds in the cobalamin family, some of which are found in

plants, to be vitamin B12, which isn't true.

>If you go back and review the thread we had on B12, you'll find a link to

>a site showing that

>spirulina also does contain true B12, as well as plant look-alikes.

I'm skeptical of the spirulina claim. Remember it was made by the vendor,

which is always suspect. But even if it's true, spirulina and other

possible plant sources also have other non-vitamin forms which inhibit the

absorption of real vitamin B12.

In fact, some doctors have suggested to me that B12 blood tests just test

for cobalamin PERIOD, so that if, for example, someone is unable to

adequately transform cyanocobalamin (the most common B12 supplement in the

US) into real B12, the test might show that they have excess B12 in their

blood when in fact they have a deficiency! (I do have to make it clear

that as far as I'm concerned, this remains a theory, because I've been

unable to find any solid corroboration, but maybe someone here can help me

out.)

>However, stating that " no B12 is found in plant sources " is wrong, and

>will insult the vegetarian

>and vegan readers who know better.

Even stipulating that B12 can be properly absorbed from plant sources,

there are nonetheless plenty of true statements -- " saturated animal fat is

very good for you " , for example -- that will " insult " vegetarian and vegan

readers who think they know better. Statements shouldn't be phrased to be

insulting, of course, but we cannot avoid that kind of insult. We can only

work to avoid being wrong ourselves.

>Perhaps Fallon/Enig/Byrne do want a cult following?

I _really_ think you're overreacting. I think they're doing the best they

can. AFAIK the WAP Foundation isn't exactly rolling in money. It's hard

to get all this documentation up -- and edited and perfected -- without

adequate funds. Dr. Byrnes' _Myths_ article, for example, is rigorously

documented, logically argued, and he periodically revises it. Look at his

debate with Dr. Janson if you disagree. Does that make him 100% perfect

and error-free? Probably not. I've indicated I have some disagreements

with NT and WAPF here, like about grains. But people of good will and

integrity can disagree and argue. It doesn't work that way in cults.

>Any doctor, from any branch of medicine, including homeopathy and

>allopathy, will have had the

>experience of being able to help a woman maintain pregnancy. This is a

>non-example, and worse,

>because it touches our deepest fears and hopes, it comes across as

>sensationalistic.

I understand where you're coming from, but my understanding is that it's

extremely common for people with fertility problems to be able to get

pregnant and carry to term by going on a WAP-type diet -- plenty of fat and

animal foods. I don't have the figure at hand, but infertility rates (at

least in the US) have SKYROCKETED. I mean, the figure is terrifying,

something like 20-30%. So I think it's not a non-example but a very

representative example.

>I would feel insulted on many levels. " Here this guy wants to refute my

>diet, and he

>resorts to manipulative examples and lies? "

_Perhaps_ the B12 issue is open to argument, but I'd hardly call that a

lie. And an example is fair if it's representative.

>And finally -- this was a hard post for me to write. I do not feel at all

>comfortable in the role of

>critiquer. It's because I like so much about NT that I would like to see

>its representatives do

>better. The diet-approach is strong enough on its own. It doesn't need an

>aura of absolute answers

>to succeed.

The fact that you won't (I hope!) be flamed to death for writing this post

is one very solid indicator of the differences between this board and the

WAP movement generally and vegetarian/vegan communities, which can be very

caustic and hateful to dissidents and out-group people.

I don't know about auras, but some things are absolute. Soy, for example,

is toxic, period. The only grey area involves small amounts of

highly-fermented traditional soy condiments, like soy sauce. But as modern

soy, even non-GM, has a much higher isoflavone content, I'm even leery of

soy sauce and generally avoid it. I haven't perused the Soy Online

Services site, but the WAP soy article I read is excellent --

well-documented and logical. Do you disagree? (That said, sure, it would

be good to have better animal data, fantastic to have better human

data. But raising babies on soy to prove a point is a bit problematic.)

Take care,

-

March 24, 2002

-

I think I'll withdraw from the thread for a couple days, to avoid having a

nervous breakdown when

the flaming comes <S> or the endless arguments.

I just wanted to respond to one or two of your points where I have something

perhaps to say. First

though, I stand with my post as I wrote it. Second, I appreciate the context in

which you stated

your opinion of studies. I know of many published allergists who refer to their

patients doing well

with raw milk; and I also know that nutritional doctors and allergists have a

difficult time getting

their studies published. Even Dr. Doris Rapp has had her studies refused. There

is therefore a point

when common sense and consensual observations has to stand for itself when a

lack of published

studies or well-done studies leaves no other choice.

Then, as to fertility and diet. The polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is

responsible for a large

amount of infertility. Indeed, these women find that going on a non-carbohydrate

or low-carbohydrate

diet, rich in fat and meat, helps them ovulate. The explanation is not the worth

of these foods, but

that these women have hormonal imbalances such as insulin resistance and

estrogen dominance, caused

often by the SAD diet.

By reducing insulin-provoking foods (carbohydrates) they do better, and their

hormones come into

balance. However, even this is not enough for some. Women who do not take

allopathic medicine may

use special herbs such as Vitex Agnus Castus which regulates their progesterone

production, and

other herbs that balance their estrogen. Acupuncture and teas from TCM are

commonly used. Even so it

can take months to see ovulation.

I have never seen this in the context of, well, just add some animal food and

you'll ovulate. It's a

whole dietary and lifestyle change. Furthermore, I'd bet (and win) that there

are women, like the

one described in Dr. Byrne's essay, who do ovulate but cannot maintain their

pregnancy, and who then

succeed if they become vegetarians. I'm sure that if you ask a doctor on the

'other side of the

fence' that s/he will be able to cite cases. So it remains a non-example in my

opinion.

Then, as to the problem with funding for editors. Editors are not that

expensive-and these writers

obviously do not need a word-for-word edit; whatever they're doing now, it's

working as NT is a fine

read. Moreover, there are many writers/editors who would be more than willing to

give these pieces a

'reality check' go-through for free, or for later payment when the book sells.

You would be

surprised at how much friendship and help is out there if you look for it. If

there is a good cause,

there are people who are willing to donate their time. And in the end, one makes

more money to

support the foundation, because a wider audience is reached. It is a sound

investment. It's a matter

of reaching out for friends in different communities. Finding a capable editor

might happen like

this: writing an add on editor websites, or inquiring at various writer's unions

in the following

terms:

" We are compiling information that we believe is crucial for health, dispelling

myths that have been

propagated by bias in past research. However, we are very close to the research,

and it is possible

that our subjective involvement in the work causes us to make statements that

are confusing or

alienating to the reader; i.e., since we understand the research and clinical

background for what we

say, we may overlook the reader's need for more explanation. What we are looking

for is someone who

will read through our work and websites for evidence of this. " Doing such

'reality checks' is one

aspect of editing, and is not as time-taking or costly as word-for-word editing.

I know members of the lactation community (doctors, nutritionists) who would

have been more than

happy to go through the book and site for free or for very little--out of their

altruistic interest

in mothers having good information available.

I think it is very SAD (Dr. M, I stick with this word!) that lactation

consultants cannot

comfortably refer their mothers to this book--this is precisely the community

(young mothers) who

need this information the most. (I am a holistic lactation consultant in

Switzerland so I speak for

myself as well.) The wealth of information on foods that support lactation, and

the wealth of

information for how to make food more digestible makes it a must for mothers. I

believe it was

Carmen who, a few weeks ago, wrote an excellent post on the reasons that NT

estranges the lactation

community. I also feel that the emphasis on animal fats, to the near exclusion

of essential fatty

acids, makes it potentially dangerous for mothers to read this book. It is the

lack of EFAs or the

inability to metabolize EFAs that has been correlated with ADD, learning

disorders, and allergies in

children.

Again--a near-truth or truth that I have not been able to validate and that is

not footnoted in NT:

that deep sea fish do not contain mercury that is dangerous to us. Where the

heck is this from?

Since it is such crucial information, especially to mothers and pregnant women,

why isn't it

footnoted?

I think I will sit back and observe where this thread goes the next few days. I

am sorry that,

unlike Carmen, I cannot write criticism more gently. I do honor and respect the

incredible work that

has been done by Fallon/Enig, and I know that the world is a better place for

their exposing the

harmful effects of trans-fatty acids and for the books they have written. I am

grateful for all I

have learned from them.

J.

Idol schrieb:

>

> -

>

> >I personally am also disturbed by the attitude that comes across in

> >several people's posts of " since

> >studies can be used to say anything at all, lets' not cite studies or hold

> >our heroes to too high a

> >standard of truth or explanation " .

>

> If I've come off this way, it's unintentional. I do believe and know

> studies can be constructed to say any darn thing, so we have to be VERY

> aware that studies aren't automatically the be-all and end-all of

> knowledge. And someone going out into the public with a dietary agenda

> MUST be able to back up that agenda with rock-solid information.

>

> But if we're casually talking here, and someone says, " look at all the sick

> pets, why do you think they're sick? " I don't think it should be a

> conversational requirement to provide 40 footnotes. If, by contrast,

> someone's going to write a book on the subject, or create a website, it

> ought to be extensively documented. Now, I haven't read it, but I assume

> that Dr. Ian Billinghurst, founder of the BARF (Bones And Raw Food)

> movement and author of _Give Your Dog A Bone_ and some other books,

> documented his arguments in _GYDAB_. I also know he's right because I've

> seen the difference in dog after dog. Dogs fed canned food and kibble do

> OK, but they get rashes, they have dull coats, they get infirm as they age,

> they're flabby, they get cancer, hip dysplasia, etc. etc. These are _not_

> uncommon ailments. Dogs fed BARF, by contrast -- raw bones, raw meat, raw

> organs, a little vegetable matter, etc. -- are incredibly healthy. They're

> lean and muscular, and they don't suffer from those ailments as long as

> they're not fed a bad diet like nothing but battery chicken wings. That's

> enough for me to _know_ that BARF is correct, even though there may be some

> details to be refined.

>

> >Vitamin B12 is not found in plants. This is not true, yet it is stated as

> >truth both in NT and in

> >Dr. Byrnes " Myths of Vegetarianism " . As someone on this thread so

> >eloquently said, if you read a

> >website and find an untruth, you tend to discount the rest as well.

>

> Actually, to my knowledge it IS true. The problem is that many people

> consider many compounds in the cobalamin family, some of which are found in

> plants, to be vitamin B12, which isn't true.

>

> >If you go back and review the thread we had on B12, you'll find a link to

> >a site showing that

> >spirulina also does contain true B12, as well as plant look-alikes.

>

> I'm skeptical of the spirulina claim. Remember it was made by the vendor,

> which is always suspect. But even if it's true, spirulina and other

> possible plant sources also have other non-vitamin forms which inhibit the

> absorption of real vitamin B12.

>

> In fact, some doctors have suggested to me that B12 blood tests just test

> for cobalamin PERIOD, so that if, for example, someone is unable to

> adequately transform cyanocobalamin (the most common B12 supplement in the

> US) into real B12, the test might show that they have excess B12 in their

> blood when in fact they have a deficiency! (I do have to make it clear

> that as far as I'm concerned, this remains a theory, because I've been

> unable to find any solid corroboration, but maybe someone here can help me

> out.)

>

> >However, stating that " no B12 is found in plant sources " is wrong, and

> >will insult the vegetarian

> >and vegan readers who know better.

>

> Even stipulating that B12 can be properly absorbed from plant sources,

> there are nonetheless plenty of true statements -- " saturated animal fat is

> very good for you " , for example -- that will " insult " vegetarian and vegan

> readers who think they know better. Statements shouldn't be phrased to be

> insulting, of course, but we cannot avoid that kind of insult. We can only

> work to avoid being wrong ourselves.

>

> >Perhaps Fallon/Enig/Byrne do want a cult following?

>

> I _really_ think you're overreacting. I think they're doing the best they

> can. AFAIK the WAP Foundation isn't exactly rolling in money. It's hard

> to get all this documentation up -- and edited and perfected -- without

> adequate funds. Dr. Byrnes' _Myths_ article, for example, is rigorously

> documented, logically argued, and he periodically revises it. Look at his

> debate with Dr. Janson if you disagree. Does that make him 100% perfect

> and error-free? Probably not. I've indicated I have some disagreements

> with NT and WAPF here, like about grains. But people of good will and

> integrity can disagree and argue. It doesn't work that way in cults.

>

> >Any doctor, from any branch of medicine, including homeopathy and

> >allopathy, will have had the

> >experience of being able to help a woman maintain pregnancy. This is a

> >non-example, and worse,

> >because it touches our deepest fears and hopes, it comes across as

> >sensationalistic.

>

> I understand where you're coming from, but my understanding is that it's

> extremely common for people with fertility problems to be able to get

> pregnant and carry to term by going on a WAP-type diet -- plenty of fat and

> animal foods. I don't have the figure at hand, but infertility rates (at

> least in the US) have SKYROCKETED. I mean, the figure is terrifying,

> something like 20-30%. So I think it's not a non-example but a very

> representative example.

>

> >I would feel insulted on many levels. " Here this guy wants to refute my

> >diet, and he

> >resorts to manipulative examples and lies? "

>

> _Perhaps_ the B12 issue is open to argument, but I'd hardly call that a

> lie. And an example is fair if it's representative.

>

> >And finally -- this was a hard post for me to write. I do not feel at all

> >comfortable in the role of

> >critiquer. It's because I like so much about NT that I would like to see

> >its representatives do

> >better. The diet-approach is strong enough on its own. It doesn't need an

> >aura of absolute answers

> >to succeed.

>

> The fact that you won't (I hope!) be flamed to death for writing this post

> is one very solid indicator of the differences between this board and the

> WAP movement generally and vegetarian/vegan communities, which can be very

> caustic and hateful to dissidents and out-group people.

>

> I don't know about auras, but some things are absolute. Soy, for example,

> is toxic, period. The only grey area involves small amounts of

> highly-fermented traditional soy condiments, like soy sauce. But as modern

> soy, even non-GM, has a much higher isoflavone content, I'm even leery of

> soy sauce and generally avoid it. I haven't perused the Soy Online

> Services site, but the WAP soy article I read is excellent --

> well-documented and logical. Do you disagree? (That said, sure, it would

> be good to have better animal data, fantastic to have better human

> data. But raising babies on soy to prove a point is a bit problematic.)

>

> Take care,

>

> -

March 25, 2002

wrote: