A word about raw milk, if you will

The BBQ Pit
141

[QUOTE=faithfool]
Genuine question, so please no one jump on me. But wasn’t magellan only saying what worked for him, not encouraging other people to take his same route? If I missed something though, just point me in the right direction. Thank you.
[/QUOTE]

This was the bit that irritated me:

He appears later to be defending the chiropractor’s bogus explanation, in spite of people who explain to him its bogosity. At least Knittington recognized the silliness of the rabies claim; magellan would do well to recognize the silliness of the enzyme claim.

Daniel

142

Ah thanks LHoD. I guess my eyes glazed over when I read that and didn’t think much further than, “Hmmm. Since it worked for him, he’s just accepting what the practitioner said at face value.” I didn’t take the extra step to process that once given facts, he needed to revise. 'Preciate it.

143

[QUOTE=faithfool]
Ah thanks LHoD.
[/QUOTE]

No problem!
Daniel

144

[QUOTE=Trunk]
Don’t be a fucking idiot. You were talking about pre-packaged ground beef, not “ground scrapings off the slaughterhouse floor”.

…

Yes, thanks. I’m sure that it’s just around the corner, even though I’ve eaten raw beef since I was about 8. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

What’s just around the corner?

145

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
What’s just around the corner?
[/QUOTE]

Someone wearing an ass.

Daniel

146

All this tense bickering… I need a warm glass of unpasteurized milk to calm down.

147

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I have no problem with his saying [paraphrased], “I prefer raw milk, because it agrees with my stomach better.” I DO have a problem with his suggesting some scientific explanation for this perception, lacking any basis whatsoever for making a scientific claim. If he said, “Raw milk agrees with my stomach more because the happy milk fairies haven’t been boiled to death,” that’d be fine. But he’s not talking about happy milk fairies, he’s talking about enzymes. You don’t talk about enzymes unless you have a scientific basis to do so, goddammit.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

While megellan01 did mention enzymes Post 85 , megellan01 immediately clarified his source when questioned Post 89

Even when featherlou (post 94) and Una Persson (Post 96) called his chinese chiropractor a quack, megellan01 didn’t rise to the bait, but was quite polite IMHO Post 97

When Pullet suggested that he try goat’s milk, he was open to that idea, so megellan01 is not a rabid raw milk dog, foaming at the mouth spewing intentional bullshit every which way.

[QUOTE=Inner Stickler]
I think if he’s going to start offering TCM as a valid alternative to more scientific medicine then he needs to sit down, shut up, and let the grownups do the talking.
[/QUOTE]

See above, he is only repeating was he was told and what works for him. He is willing to try PASTEURIZED goat’s milk, so cut megellan01 a fucking break already!

[QUOTE=faithfool]
Genuine question, so please no one jump on me. But wasn’t magellan only saying what worked for him, not encouraging other people to take his same route? If I missed something though, just point me in the right direction. Thank you.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you, that was my point too.

Originally Posted by magellen01
Now, your attempt to portray chiropractic and/or chinese medicine as things rooted in spiritualism and hocus pocus (and therefore are dangerous and/or ineffective) shows you know not of what you speak. As I mentioned earlier, I saw gastroenterologists and other specialists for over two years for stomach ailments and after giving me (their words) “every test and procedure they could think of” they, literally, threw up their hands.** I went to a chinese chiropractor and I saw improvements every week, while being completely “cured” in three-four months.**
[QUOTE=Inner Stickler]
Perhaps his body does find raw milk easier to digest. (Although I am skeptical of this.) But his posts are a tacit approval of snake oil and I don’t have a lot of patience for this kind of chicanery.
[/QUOTE]

Bolding and red lettering is mine. Note the quotes around cured, you do know what that means right?

Megellan01 got no relief from the “traditional American pill popping, x-raying, scanning, Medical Establishment”. The chinese voodoo hoochie man did “cure” him tho.

But we all know the Chinese are a second rate country that doesn’t know anything about health care. Hell they haven’t even been civilized by you American yet now have they?

148

[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
While megellan01 did mention enzymes Post 85 , megellan01 immediately clarified his source when questioned Post 89
[/QUOTE]

Fair point; I wasn’t reading carefully enough, it looks like. Magellan, I owe you an apology.

Daniel

149

[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
Megellan01 got no relief from the “traditional American pill popping, x-raying, scanning, Medical Establishment”. The chinese voodoo hoochie man did “cure” him tho.
[/quote]
Yep, his testimonial should be quite enough. Who needs clinical studies?

Althougnh it’s been my impression that Dopers (especially when it comes to health matters) are more impressed by solid evidence from controlled studies, than they are by claims that I/my grandma/Joe down the block drank raw milk/bathed in cider vinegar/had their whole congregation praying for them and thus were cured of allergies/hypertension/cancer/negative thoughts.

You might be interested to know that “traditional Chinese medicine” has been on the decline recently in China in favor of evidence-based “Western”-style care.

For those researching the scientific literature for studies on various forms of Chinese medicine, there’s a very interesting book out now (Snake Oil Science by R. Barker Bausell) that talks about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and its claims to scientific underpinnings.

One key point is that publications in Chinese medical journals about CAM are heavily weighted towards positive studies, even more so than journals in English-speaking countries. For instance, a review of studies on acupuncture found that 98% of these studies in Chinese medical journals reported a positive effect of the treatment, compared to 40% or so of similar studies in the U.S. and other “Western” nations. Either those nasty ol’ Westerners are unfairly biased against acupuncture, or the Chinese journal editors are unwilling to publish studies showing acupuncture doesn’t work.

150

[QUOTE=Inner Stickler]
I think if he’s going to start offering TCM as a valid alternative to more scientific medicine then he needs to sit down, shut up, and let the grownups do the talking.
[/QUOTE]

And you need to sit back down at the kiddie table, shut the fuck up and learn to read for comprehension. I simply offered my own personal experience. In fact, my first words in the thread are “For what it’s worth…”. And when I was asked if I “recommend” this or that I adamantly refused to NOT do so—for two reason. 1) I am not a doctor of any type. Hell, I even admitted that I don’t even recall if I was told that it was “enzymes” that were killed during pasteurization. And 2) I cannot put myself in another posters shoes to the extent that I can fully understand what ailments they have or treatments they’ve had, etc., etc.

**LHoD—**You, on the other hand are usually a better digester of words. I’d simply ask you to read my posts in their entirety. If your problem stem from my initial claim about “enzymes”, I refer you to the post that followed it. Truth be told, I meant to include a question mark inside the parenthesis in my first post. But I straightened this out in my second.

151

[QUOTE=magellan01]

**LHoD—**You, on the other hand are usually a better digester of words. I’d simply ask you to read my posts in their entirety. If your problem stem from my initial claim about “enzymes”, I refer you to the post that followed it. Truth be told, I meant to include a question mark inside the parenthesis in my first post. But I straightened this out in my second.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed: see post 148.

Daniel

152

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Fair point; I wasn’t reading carefully enough, it looks like. Magellan, I owe you an apology.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

Well, I just wrote you a note in my last post. But I had a feeling (based on your postings of the last few months where I haven’t participated much) that this might actually be coming. It’s gratifying on multiple levels. Thank you. Your apology is fully accepted and much appreciated.

153

Jackmannii, I have no desire to get into a big debate regarding medicine. I don’t need any study to tell me tiger balm salve relieves aches and pains, or green tea is good. Common sense tells me to research any drug or herb etc. anyone prescribes for me before I take it, so I do.

That was a stupid crack I made regarding the pill pushing medical establishment and I do apologize to you all.

I am not a doctor or in any way involved in the health field. I do get pissed off though when people just dismiss other ways of treating ailments. The chinese have been around for centuries, obviously some of the stuff they do works, just as obviously some of it doesn’t. To call chiropractors quacks is offensive to me. I find relief in adjustments. Just as I do from a masseuse. I still have a doctor though, and I just don’t get why people can’t accept that lots of people like different things. Informed choice is the basic principle here, the rest of this is bullshit.

154

FarmerChick, I just wanted to thank you for your post #147, and others. So, “thanks”.

155

[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
Informed choice is the basic principle here.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, but that gets us to the underlying question: At what point does your Informed Choice become my Contagious Disease Risk and the population’s Massive Mis-Education?

156

[QUOTE=Pullet]
Ah, but that gets us to the underlying question: At what point does your Informed Choice become my Contagious Disease Risk and the population’s Massive Mis-Education?
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t know it was such a big risk now. Is there a Health Advisory issued for this? On the scale of Massive Mis-Education, where does this rate? I realize that the general public really is as dumb as a bag of hammers and and tend to follow the herd like sheep, but really, the fear mongering is really kind of silly. I have no idea what the actual stats are, but I tend to think death by milk, both pasteurized or raw is really really far down on the cause of death chart.

But I could be wrong.

ETA megellan01 you’re quite welcome

157

[QUOTE=Pullet]
Ah, but that gets us to the underlying question: At what point does your Informed Choice become my Contagious Disease Risk and the population’s Massive Mis-Education?
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure, but I think it’s a point well beyond this. I’d venture a guess that travelling to many, many countries carries a much greater risk of acquiring a contagious disease than does drinking raw milk. And there are lots of things we let people do that carry negligible risk for those around them–for example, we let folks eat while driving, let folks listen to Rush Limbaugh and cast ballots, let folks send sick children to school. In order to convince me that “think of the children” (or “think of the innocent populace”) is a valid argument, you’ll need to show that it’s a significant risk, not just that hypothetically it could possibly sometime be a risk.

Daniel

158

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Guess you don’t realize it, honey, but your post was insulting. If that was not your intent and would like to apologize for that, fine. Until then, bless your heart.
[/QUOTE]

And still the deliberate insults. You’re really a very rude person, something I have never noticed from you before in all the years I’ve read your posts here.

I’m not disputing that your symptoms are gone, if you say they are. I’m not saying with certainty that the remedy given to you did not work. I’m saying that your method for assessing the effectiveness is not scientific.

And aside from one other piece of business, I’m done here.

159

[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
I didn’t know it was such a big risk now. Is there a Health Advisory issued for this? On the scale of Massive Mis-Education, where does this rate? I realize that the general public really is as dumb as a bag of hammers and and tend to follow the herd like sheep, but really, the fear mongering is really kind of silly. I have no idea what the actual stats are, but I tend to think death by milk, both pasteurized or raw is really really far down on the cause of death chart.

[/QUOTE]

As others have posted upthread, the death by raw milk rate was pretty significant before pasturization was widespread. The numbers today are low partly because not many folks drink raw milk and partly because we keep our cows healthy in other ways.

Would a violent shift such that everyone was drinking raw milk cause the same mortality rates as yesteryear? Probably not, but only because we keep the cows healthy in other ways. Would it increase the disease incidence overall? You betcha. Would it create a situation where an outbreak of disease in cattle would pose a significant threat to the human population? You betcha. With more people sick, are their increased odds of people who do not drink raw milk getting sick too? Of course.

Here’s a classic example of public miseducation: Hormones and Chickens.
No chicken, ever, is given hormones. Never. But ask anyone who doesn’t know about the poultry industry, and they will say of course chickens are given hormones. I see it misquoted constantly by otherwise balanced, well-educated people. People who are willing to shell out $5 for a dozen eggs because they think the hormone-free chickens are the better moral choice. And yet those chickens are not kept any differently than those in the evil exploitative Modern Agriculture farms. But because everyone thinks that chickens are given hormones, the savvy chicken farmer labels his eggs “hormone free” and turns a profit.

I don’t consider the position Miss Purl and I and other have as fear mongering. I consider us to be providing a layman’s interpretation of the science available so that folks who aren’t up to evaluating the studies themselves can come to their own informed opinion.

160

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I’m not sure, but I think it’s a point well beyond this. I’d venture a guess that travelling to many, many countries carries a much greater risk of acquiring a contagious disease than does drinking raw milk. And there are lots of things we let people do that carry negligible risk for those around them–for example, we let folks eat while driving, let folks listen to Rush Limbaugh and cast ballots, let folks send sick children to school. In order to convince me that “think of the children” (or “think of the innocent populace”) is a valid argument, you’ll need to show that it’s a significant risk, not just that hypothetically it could possibly sometime be a risk.

[/QUOTE]

History shows it’s not a hypothetical small risk.

And I’m not saying that there aren’t other things that are riskier.

I’m saying that it’s a problem that is really super easy to avoid and wasn’t even an issue until some misinformed yuppies got a stick up their craws about processed food and tEh Evils Modern Agriculture.

For a fleeting second, I was in agreement with you, LHoD. Alas, discord enters the world of men again.