I read your quoted statements. What do the bracketed numbers in the first paragraph mean?
Now, you can answer my question: How does this issue stand with the better-known nutritionists (including Adelle Davis, even though I know she is no longer living)?
Parrt of the thrust of the first paragraphs seems to be that the more weighty authority is ipso facto (always) correct; sorry, but I don’t automatically root for the Yankees. I know that throughout history many scientists and researchers have bucked the status quo in order to develop fields of knowledge, and I will not immediately close my mind to what is branded “oddball.” That does not mean I am rejecting what you have quoted to me concerning “organic milk”; quite the contrary. I would want to assess a product on the basis of its merits rather than those, or the lack of those, of a particular authority (such as I quote)…
One of Jackmanni’s trademarked first pillars of woo is “The experts have been wrong before.” Indeed they have, but not as often as the quacks have been. You may not always root for the Yankees but when the pitcher for the Yankees and the pitcher for another professional team both say that a ball thrown a certain way tends to behave a certain way I tend to believe it more than when somebody who says they are a professional ball player but actually is a dishwasher says it does. The dishwasher could still be on to something no matter how oddball it is, maybe there are lizard people controlling the country for example, or baseballs really behave exactly opposite of how multiple professional pitchers say they do, but usually betting against it is the better bet.
Really not sure what you mean by “better known.” People who write popular books or blogs about how orgainzed medicine an science, the CDC, the FDA, and so on, are all wrong, rather than do actual science? Who have, like Adelle Davis, given dangerously false information out? Don’t know any of them to ask and don’t place much stock in what they say.
The raw milk promoters basically follow the same playbooks as the antivaxxers and are often the same people. I care less about the raw milk people because mostly the only people they are putting at any risk are themselves (so long as they are not feeding it to kids). Like with eating puffer fish, you’ve been made aware of the risk and you choose to do, go ahead. But yes just like I think that the public should be aware that uncooked ground beef and chicken are risks for certain diseases, they should be aware that raw milk is as well. The antivaxxer stupidity puts others at risk and therefore crosses my line. Raw milk only crosses my line if fed to kids. Again I give a wide berth to the right of people to do things I think are dumb and there are lots bigger risks than drinking raw milk.
You like the taste, you have been informed that there is greater risk and want to anyway, go at it. I’ll resent paying your hospital bill out of my insurance premium but I can live with that. You are allowed to smoke (which is much more dangerous) and you should be allowed to drink raw milk. But you should not be allowed to give cigartettes or raw milk to a child and those who do drink it should be fully informed that current expert opinion finds this behaviors to be associated with increased risks of disease with no increased benefit. Just like smoking. Even if you can find people who think the experts are wrong about that too.
It is another hallmark of woo for a handful of pseudo-experts to be cited in support of a claim (while ignoring the vast majority of actual experts who have opposing views).
Right. Again, I am at least not recalling you (Dougie) as a chronically hostile [potty mouth word deleted] poster. There are few possible explanations for that.
I could just not have posted in the same threads as you much in the past and you are one but I’ve not had the pleasure previously.
I am old and not remembering.
Something is going on that you are acting oddly for you. I’ve found that out after the fact with several posters who started acting uncharacteristically hostile.
Or there is some special meaning raw milk has to you.
The first is of course possible. The second, maybe but I am not that old. The third is the point of the question. The forth, well if it is the case please inform us.
I live near some Amish farms and many have generators in their barns for their woodworking equipment. They also have solar panels. Electricity is only a minor worry for them.
As far as raw milk: Unfortunately many people are stupid. While they may choose to consume raw milk themselves and not have any issues, they may also make the decision for others and use raw milk or serve to the unwary. While this may be an innocent mistake on their part, that doesn’t help the person who contracts E. coli or Listeria as a result.
A side item: The school in our area stopped children from bringing items from home for holiday celebrations when a parent, despite the notes sent home asking that peanut s and products which contain peanuts sent peanut butter cookies to a school. Apparently, a mother was unaware of the main ingredient of peanut butter cookies.
Like I said, if you want raw milk for yourself, fine. If you are an adult and your are willing to accept the potential health risks without attempting to sue if/when you do get sick, that’s fine as well.
Unfortunately, most people are unwilling to accept risks without suing others for their own stupidity or carelessness, and as such, we have laws.
The fifth possibility (not precluding any of the others) is cabin fever.
We just had a previously (mostly) rational poster fly off the handle in GD and ATMB. Maybe he was buried in snow and subzero temperatures and just couldn’t take it anymore.
As for me, the prolonged snow and cold (with -17 and -11F temps the last couple of days) haven’t affected my sunny #()&**^*(!!! disposition at all.
Can it, though? Upthread, krunen mentions that skim milk and cream are pasteurized at lower temperatures. The pluralization of “temperatures” suggests that they would need to be pasteurized separately. Not sure that counts as “easily.”
OTOH, if Jane Elliot wants pasteurized milk that’s not homogenized, she could buy pasteurized skim milk, and pasteurized cream, and combine them on her own, couldn’t she?
Or is that too simplistic a view of what she needs?
One of the things I’ve started to notice is that it is increasingly more difficult to find cream that isn’t Ultra-Pasteurized for longer shelf life. Ultra-Pasteurized cream is worthless for my needs. However, I think I might start pasteurizing the raw milk I buy for the younger cheeses I make, just for safety’s sake.
No, they don’t need to be pasteurized separately at different temperatures. Pasteurization’s about killing nasty bacteria, and the bacteria die at the same temperature in both cream and skimmed milk: either 161 F for 15 seconds, or 145 F for 30 minutes. You just don’t want to heat the milk TOO hot, or you’ll curdle it. More about milk pasteurization.
There’s just not enough commercial demand for pasteurized but unhomogenized milk for the large commercial dairies that supply most of our milk to bother about it. That’s why you don’t find unhomogenized but pasteurized milk for sale at your local Safeway, not because it’s unusually cumbersome to make.
I’d just as soon you not put words in my mouth. I do not treat the words “nutritionist” and “quack” as synonymous. I mentioned Adelle Davis without knowing what list of yours she is on. I too want the kind of information provided by properly qualified nutritionists–but not by some Dives you may choose, who just drops crumbs to Lazarus.
I don’t care if it is. I like research and can always consult a “scholarly journal” to verify what’s in the Book of Lists.
McLuhan notwithstanding, the medium is not the message.
