Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Last post by van on Yesterday at 07:43:39 am »
Ok,' completely'.   No matter, still the same delusion.
2
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Last post by PaganGoy on Yesterday at 04:37:47 am »
@van
quote
" The cream in it is the only fat that ***completely*** nutrifies the brain and nervous system. Butter can do it about two thirds, but raw cream and milk does it 100%."

In the short time I have looked into AV I have seen far more misquotes targeted toward him then accurate ones.
4
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Last post by dariorpl on Yesterday at 12:39:15 am »
All this is solid evidence against dairy with multiple studies, not just surveys.

Epidemiological studies are pretty much the same as surveys.

And again, it's all from cooked dairy consumption.

By contrast, all we have are a few studies showing that raw dairy may be helpful against  asthma in some cases. Pathetic, really.

No. Pottenger's studies clearly proved that raw dairy is health giving while cooked dairy harms health and causes all sorts of disease and degradation, which intensifies with each generation. You can say it's only so for cats, and not humans, but you can't say cooked and raw are the same.

Or to use your lack of logic ad absurdum, the leg of a deer would be useless for another species to graft on in place of a missing limb as the immune system would react against it, causing rejection of tissue, among many other health-problems. 

Lol? We are talking about food consumption, not grafts and transplants.

Another false claim. For one thing it has been pointed out that the reason for why feral children raised by wolves could not happen in real-life is because  wolves`milk is toxic for human infants, due to excess casein in it. Also, online it has been reported that sheep, goats and chimps that are fed cows’ milk sometimes develop leukemia.

Pretty irrelevant. But in any case, was this cooked dairy?

As for the casein and wolves milk, that's just a hypothesis with no backing. I also believe the story of children raised by wolves is likely fake, but not for that reason.

It is unscientific because cats were used not humans in the test. Cats are not humans Indeed, the thalidomide crisis was caused by the fact that the scientists were wrongly reassured by more positive tests done on animals.

Nobody claims that cats are humans. Pottenger certainly never did. It is interesting, however, how you bring up animal studies when they suit your biases, but discard them when they don't.

And the studies I mentioned did NOT focus on the issue of raw vs pasteurised but on the issue of excess calcium.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. "focus" is irrelevant when all the source data is coming from populations consuming cooked dairy only.

Ironically, since pasteurisation makes calcium less absorbable in the body than with raw dairy, raw dairy is clearly worse as regards the excess calcium issue. 

Are you now saying that raw dairy is worse for health than cooked dairy?

Well, that is at least something. You accept that raw dairy is not a complete food, like meat is, and is harmful  as 100% of the diet.

Not harmful, insufficient. Some people think drinking water is good for health. It would be ludicrous to propose that they show a 100% water diet is good.

Wrong. The meat study showed that even including raw dairy as 1/3 of  a diet including cooked meat was not enough to counter the ill-health effects of cooked meat. Pretty useless, really.

The studies showed that cooked milk causes disease and degeneration while raw milk prevents disease and slowly cures it and regenerates health.

  Complete bollocks. Cats were kept as pets for countless millenia and were fed by humans on the foods that humans themselves ate, including raw dairy. I could cite ancient egypt as an example, but keeping cats as pets not rodent-catchers goes WAY further back. Incidentally, you should know that human rat-catchers use terriers, not cats, for hunting rats as cats are not very good at hunting rats. 

Cats were not domesticated to be kept as pets. People back then were much more practical. If they kept an animal around, there was a material, tangible goal to it. The whole notion of keeping a pet for its own sake didn't develop in great numbers until the 19th century, and it didn't affect the masses until the 20th century .

   It matters a great deal. If an animal is in bad health, then the meat, and especially, the milk will be harmful.

Sure. but if the animal's health is only a little bit worse, but you get much more healthgiving milk out of it, then it could very well be worth the tradeoff.

Wrong again, human breeding, or rather inbreeding for dysgenic traits, is not the same as natural selection.

I didn't say its the same thing. However, there is the possibility that it's even better in some cases. For instance, do you prefer to eat wild leaves with their high toxicity, or domesticated varieties where breeding has significantly lowered the toxin loads?

It is wholly unnatural. Like we see with cooking, unnatural processes are harmful to human health. 

By that definition all human activities are unnatural, including hunting wild game. It's not simply the being natural or artificial that makes something improve our health or damage it. It's a little more complicated than that.

Tooth decay is also mainly caused by excess sugar and processed foods. So the absence of such foods, rather than the raw dairy is the most likely cause for good dental health.

Again, Pottenger's studies showed that no, cooked dairy helps cause tooth decay whereas raw dairy does the opposite.

This is simply not true. Poor people would poach wild animals to get meat. They would also seek out frogs legs and raw oysters and lobsters  and wild mushrooms, all of which were deemed disgusting poor-man`s food centuries ago.

I didn't say they ate no meats. But they ate plenty of grain. Keep in mind that the best quality meat, such as wild deer, was only for the rich.

And upper classes did indeed eat bread as a staple.

No.

5
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Last post by TylerDurden on January 14, 2019, 04:57:05 pm »
AV was a fraud to a partial extent. When challenged, he made up claims about doing a multitude of studies showing how healthy raw animal foods were, and when asked to produce them, claimed they had all been burned in  a fire.  I mean, this is a guy who borrowed from the bible( re 40 days and 40 nights in the desert!).
6
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Last post by TylerDurden on January 14, 2019, 04:27:43 pm »
They can "target" whatever they want. They base their whole analysis on survey data from various countries according to the comparative levels of consumption of cooked dairy. It's not me who has to prove that raw dairy wouldn't cause any problems. That's not how science works.
All this is solid evidence against dairy with multiple studies, not just surveys. By contrast, all we have are a few studies showing that raw dairy may be helpful against  asthma in some cases. Pathetic, really.
Quote

Gotcha. So meat is very different when going from raw to cooked, but dairy isn't, because you hate dairy.
  I had simply pointd out the obvious that meat is not the same thing as dairy, whether raw or cooked.
Quote

And the meat of a deer is meant to help the deer run around. What's that got to do with anything?
  A foolish analogy  as meat is not the same thing as raw dairy. Or to use your lack of logic ad absurdum, the leg of a deer would be useless for another species to graft on in place of a missing limb as the immune system would react against it, causing rejection of tissue, among many other health-problems.
Quote

It's only absurd to you because you didn't understand it. All you can do is name a few species from animals of a completely different class. 
   
  Another false claim. For one thing it has been pointed out that the reason for why feral children raised by wolves could not happen in real-life is because  wolves`milk is toxic for human infants, due to excess casein in it. Also, online it has been reported that sheep, goats and chimps that are fed cows’ milk sometimes develop leukemia.

Quote

How does that make them unscientific? Again, I think you don't understand what something being unscientific means. In fact it's you who is using unscientific reasoning by claiming to have proven that raw dairy is harmful because some people have some evidence to suggest cooked dairy might be.
  It is unscientific because cats were used not humans in the test. Cats are not humans Indeed, the thalidomide crisis was caused by the fact that the scientists were wrongly reassured by more positive tests done on animals. And the studies I mentioned did NOT focus on the issue of raw vs pasteurised but on the issue of excess calcium. Ironically, since pasteurisation makes calcium less absorbable in the body than with raw dairy, raw dairy is clearly worse as regards the excess calcium issue.
Quote

This has nothing to do with "scientific rigor". Nobody is arguing that a diet of pure dairy is superior to other diets. That would be like telling someone who claims that some salt is healthy to put test animals on a 100% salt diet, with no other nutrients being fed to them.
  Well, that is at least something. You accept that raw dairy is not a complete food, like meat is, and is harmful  as 100% of the diet.
Quote

The studies showed basically the same result on 2/3 dairy as 1/3 dairy.
  Wrong. The meat study showed that even including raw dairy as 1/3 of  a diet including cooked meat was not enough to counter the ill-health effects of cooked meat. Pretty useless, really.
Quote

No, it was after. And in any case, they wouldn't have been fed dairy on a regular basis. Their feed was primarily the rodents and birds they'd catch, which is why they were kept around in the first place. They weren't pets.
  Complete bollocks. Cats were kept as pets for countless millenia and were fed by humans on the foods that humans themselves ate, including raw dairy. I could cite ancient egypt as an example, but keeping cats as pets not rodent-catchers goes WAY further back. Incidentally, you should know that human rat-catchers use terriers, not cats, for hunting rats as cats are not very good at hunting rats.
Quote

You keep reading whatever you want into what I say. I didn't say there is more difference between a cat and a human than between a human and a cow. I said there's more difference in dygestive abilities between a cat an a cow, than between a human and a cow.
   Irrelevant, really. What we need to convince you is a study of cats fed on cat milk compared to cats fed on cows milk, all raw.
[/quote]
Quote

That's because you're misunderstanding the actual goal of the breeding. Intelligence isn't always the best trait to have, just like for humans, it doesn't matter that much if cows aren't in perfect health, as long as they give us better health. Also, many of these problems are due to these animals being fed unnatural diets in modern times.
  It matters a great deal. If an animal is in bad health, then the meat, and especially, the milk will be harmful. For example, I have heard of mothers transmitting diseases to their babies via their breastmilk.
Quote

Designed by who? God? Because if so, well then God probably also designed us with the ability to farm cattle and get their milk. If you mean designed by natural selection, well then again, we've selected the cows to give us better milk for us, too.
  Wrong again, human breeding, or rather inbreeding for dysgenic traits, is not the same as natural selection. It is wholly unnatural. Like we see with cooking, unnatural processes are harmful to human health.
Quote

I didn't say it doesn't differ. Btw, in that link it kinda looks like they're not very different at all. Definitely way more similar to each other than all the other milks from all the other mammals around.

Also, keep in mind that the selection of cow milk may not be to suit the needs of baby humans the best, but adult humans.
  Cows milk is a ruminant milk. To get healthier milk, one would have to drink chimpanzee milk as a human. As regards babies,  most humans gradually develop more and more lactose intolerance over time as adults, as adult mammals are not supposed to be drinkng milk, however raw, past infancy.
Quote

Looking at people's teeth is quick and easy, and through his studies he found that this correlated to general health in peoples whom he had studied more in deph. Also, look at Pottenger's studies again. Tooth decay corresponds with all the other health problems caused by the cooked foods diet.
  Tooth decay is also mainly caused by excess sugar and processed foods. So the absence of such foods, rather than the raw dairy is the most likely cause for good dental health. I am suspicious of WP as he was very selective in his photos. I mean, given a lack of dentists and the incidence of disease and famine, it is impossible for more than a few HGs to have had perfect teeth throughout their lives.
[/quote]
They were also stronger than modern day hunter gatherers. There's many other reasons to explain this, rather than simply blame dairy. They were cooking more of their foods, for starters, even if they weren't eating much grains.[/quote]  It at least shows that raw dairy is so useless as a health-food that it cannot counteract the consumption of cooked animal foods.
Quote

Not really. Bread and other grains and legumes have always been associated with the poor. In the middle ages the nobility would use bread as a plate to serve food in, they didn't eat it, they just gave it to the poor to eat after the meal.
This is simply not true. Poor people would poach wild animals to get meat. They would also seek out frogs legs and raw oysters and lobsters  and wild mushrooms, all of which were deemed disgusting poor-man`s food centuries ago.  And upper classes did indeed eat bread as a staple.
7
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Last post by van on January 14, 2019, 04:55:32 am »
'fifty percent of the calcium in milk is cauterized when past...'   where does he get that number?   Are there labs on this report?   AV repeatedly made similar claims without ever showing where he got the information.  Since most of us know the word cauterized from movies or stories about how in years past wounds were cauterized on say a battlefield, the image/word carries weight and emotional strength. 
   Until I ever see any conclusive proof backing up these claims AV makes, I will simply repeat my claims that AV made up anything to back up his beliefs.  And suggest to others here to suspect the same. 
  Also question his statement that cream is the ONLY,  I repeat ONLY fat that nutrifies the brain and nervous system.  Come on think about this statement in the context of those peoples who don't keep cows.    Again, 'we' want so badly to believe him because we want so badly to have the Answer.
8
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Last post by PaganGoy on January 13, 2019, 04:33:29 pm »
There are sources to support the claims made by ajanous regarding bone health and so on in this free pdf

https://www.wewant2live.com/shop/petition-and-report-in-favor-of-natural-milk-pdf/
9
Science / Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Last post by PaganGoy on January 13, 2019, 04:16:23 pm »
"Dairy, ultimately, is meant to sustain and help infants of the very species it is created from, that's all."
autism much?
A page from the ww2l members area

Raw Milk is Safe But Beware of Big Commercial Milks
 July 29, 2014  admin  Subscriber Content   
Viewed 12 times since 15 July 2018
Raw Milks are Safe and Nutritious but Beware of Big Commercial Milks

Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Okay, milk. Delicious, wonderful milk. Milk is one of the most nutritious foods there is.

 

Besides the egg, it is the most easily digestible. It only takes 6 - 10 hours to digest - raw milk of course.

 

Once it’s pasteurized, 50% of the calcium is cauterized. That means it’s hardened into a substance that can’t be utilized to do what it’s supposed to do in the body, including building healthy tissue.

 

It has a tendency to build brittle bones and dry tissue when you’re drinking pasteurized milk.

 

Milk is the most easily digested food, next to eggs. It only takes 6 - 10 hours. It’s already liquid, so the body doesn’t have to do much with hydrochloric acid or any of the digestive juices. What it will do is infiltrate with bacteria and as I said earlier, bacteria is the main process of digestion so all it has to do is infiltrate it.

 

Egg is the most digestible and that digests in a matter of 27 minutes. Again, it doesn’t require any hydrochloric acid or digestive juices to pre-digest it, to break larger particles of food down into smaller particles of food so that bacteria can eat it - consume it.

 

And of course, their waste is our food.

 

If you buy regular milk from a big milk company, you’ll notice that they say it’s milk, fat-free. That’s because they will take the milk, they’ll remove all animal fat from it and they will put oils and esters in place of it. They’re usually vegetable oils, and remember what I said about vegetable oils - they will crystallize and harden in the body. So when you’re drinking a very well-known, famous brand of milk, what they’ve basically done is taken the milk, they’ve deprived it of protein and they’ve deprived it of the fats. And it’s a blue liquid. It has no relationship to milk at all and it will have a very long shelf-life.

 

So then what they do is they take dolomite - mined calcium, calcium concentrated rock - and they shovel it into the vats to turn this blue fluid back into a white fluid. It’s all a hoax: there is no relationship to milk at all in it. Plus they use hydrogenated vegetable oils which are plastic. So you have something that is totally foreign and chemical, and it isn’t milk at all.

 

The only place you can get totally pure raw milk is from a farmer who produces raw milk. There are a few states you can get it commercially in stores, but not many: California is one, and you can go into some stores… Whole Foods is a joke again. Whole Foods stopped carrying raw milk in California when they could. They say it’s an insurance issue. It has nothing to do with insurance, they’ve carried insurance before. I talked to the insurance company and they are very willing to continue to insure that food, just like they insure the meats and everything else. So, raw milk is a wonderful food, it helps calm the body. The cream in it is the only fat that completely nutrifies the brain and nervous system. Butter can do it about two thirds, but raw cream and milk does it 100%.
10
Primal Diet / Re: A1 versus A2 dairy, any difference?
« Last post by norawnofun on January 13, 2019, 04:19:06 am »
Thanks for ur inputs. I would like to try and go the non-dairy route to see of any improvements. So far, things were only going uphill since carnivore, but I think you can always improve things. And being a slave to dairy ain´t no fun. I´m way too dependent on that and I want it to stop. And because I want more mental clarity, but if your digestion is blocked then you don´t have that. Therefore dairy up until now was the only way to somewhat have a good digestion and stay a bit focused. I did fasts only twice. Once a juice fast for 5 days, and once a broth fast for 1 and a half days. Nearly passed out on the broth, never attempted that again. I don´t like fasts because you loose weight, and every kilo counts for me. But I guess I have no choice if I want to turn things around and get the stomach acid back to its origin. Or I do it very slowly. Cut out more and more dairy, replace it with fat, eat very small portions. I also think that the goat dairy I have is pretty much hindering things, since its more alkaline. When I have cow milk things are going much better since its acidic and fattier.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk