Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thing that astounds me with this and similar arguments is that people taking the official position keep stating that there is no conclusive, scientific proof of the anecdotal evidence provided by the opposition... totally forgetting that there is no conclusive, scientific proof of their evidence either.
In the case of the benefits of raw milk, the establishment completely discounts that there is a direct inverse incidence of asthma in children who drink raw milk. The connection cannot be proven scientifically (yet), but the occurence is too pronounced to be coincidence.
Here's a little more anecdotal evidence that is sure to get ignored by the zealots... I cannot drink pasteurized, homogenized, fortified supermarket milk. It makes me violently ill for days. I initially believed that I was lactose intolerant or had developed an allergy to dairy. However, neither of those answers seemed accurate because I could eat other cultured dairy products without getting sick. So, with the supervision of my doctor, I began blind testing different milks... what I found was that I could drink raw milks (cow, goat and sheep), and I could drink slow-pasteurized milks (goat being the most tolerable)... but even the organic milks in the supermarket made me ill. I have no idea what exactly is happening in the grocery store milk that is making barf my guts up and live on the toilet, but something is definitely there making my body unhappy. I can't ignore what my body is telling me just because it can't be scientifically proven.
Do any of you raw milk buyers take a sample and have it tested for bacteria and SCC ?
If not, are you scared to find out how bad it tests? ( so bad that processors refuse to take it )
Yes, I have had my own tested or asked to see the test results for others. I didn't do this because I was scared that the results would be bad, I did this because I am not stupid enough to trust that any of my food is safe without checking it first for myself.
Also, please note that I completely ignore the "Total Bacteria Count" in the test results and only look at the counts for the harmful bacteria. Total Bacteria Count in this instance is a completely irrelevant number since it does not differentiate between beneficial, benign and dangerous.
Let's take a look at a sector where the propaganda engine won. Tobacco.
This is not an arugment on whether smoking is good or bad for you. This simply illustrates how reports, statistics and the conclusions that were ultimately derived from them were not conclusive (or even logical) yet targeted campaigns against the product succeeded in turning public opinion against the product so drastically that the product is becoming increasingly difficult to produce and obtain, and is a basis of increased fines, tariffs and other forms of taxation.
Fact -- X number of people who smoke died of lung cancer in Y year. Great. But what that little data point does not indicate, nor was it ever researched, what other possible factors could lurking in the environment or lifestyles of those smokers that could have contributed to the lung cancer or their perceived increased risk of contracting it. Ergo, this data point is useless in proving that smoking causes lung cancer.
Fact -- People who don't smoke, have never smoked, and have never been subjected to inordinant amounts of secondhand smoke, still get lung cancer every year. This proves that other things cause lung cancer.
Fact -- despite the success of the anti-smoking campaign and the drastic reduction in tobacco-related usage in the US, lung cancer rates continue to rise. So this begs the question -- what are the other factors in our environment and lifestyles that could explain this increase if we can't pin it all on the elected scapegoat?
What the propaganda engine has done was take completely unrelated data points, strung them together without full and definitive investigation, to "prove" their assumption; then proceeded to suppress and ignore any other data that didn't support their claims.
I don't know what the tobacco companies did to tick off the Powers That Be, since they certainly made a lot of money for the nation and provided a lot of employment opportunities. Perhaps they're simply guilty of not being worth as much as the other industry (or industries) that may also be a causitive factor in the increased cancer rates (say Big Oil or the Industrial Food System). Or maybe, since tobacco hasn't actually been completely BANNED, they're just part of a targetted approach to get consumers to accept higher prices and pay more taxes??
Who knows?? It's all conspiracy theory since we can't get accurate, unbiased numbers and there is no conclusive scientific proof (arguably, there is no way to even get conclusive scientific proof).
But the fact remains that information is continually provided to us that is completely irrelevant or unsubstantiated.
Here's a little statistical analysis for you... 100% of people who get lung cancer swallow saliva, and 100% of people who contract food-bourne illness swallow saliva, 100% of people who swallow saliva die. 100% of saliva samples are teeming with bacteria. Therefore, saliva is an inherently dangerous substance that will cause illness and death if swallowed and should be banned for public safety.
I now live in a society that can drink water from the tap, usually. Speaking of getting out in the real world, perhaps some should visit a country were ordinary people take responsibility for their own potable water.
All an all its a good thing that I have potable water from the tap. On the other hand, I was required to wear a life preserver when taking a row boat on a pond. In this pond I think it went up to my waist in most areas.
How idiot proof should we be?
Should we worry about fruit pits? The Prunus genus is a well known hazard.
What about tomato plants? Do people know only the fruit is edible?
How about raw poultry? Is it really safe? Can people be trusted to cook it?
Again, as someone who makes cheese, I can pasteurize at the temperature I like, make a hard cheese, or do some other thing a free person can do just like other people do with a chicken.
I suppose some people presume a dystopia of perfectly safe idiots is the greater good.
Natural food is getting harder and harder to get.
I can understand having inspections to determine if the property and products are clean and free from toxins, but really must they do this sort of thing?
Why exactly can we not buy unpasturized milk if we chooze to.
It is still OK for commercial growers to souse their fields with tons of pesticides and fungacides, much of which remains in and on the produce and CANNOT be washed off. They can inject hormones in to cattle and feed it to the chickens and that's OK too. Yet these farmers who want to raise a Natural product are harrassed constantly.
Why?
And really why do they take computers?
What exactly do they look for there?
And having done this and examined them why do they not give them back?
Fedzilla says...open borders OK...natural food producers...raid them with Uzis drawn...home of the brave and land of the Free?
Oh brother. So someone gets raided for putting out a crappy product and getting people sick or maybe some completely different reason and it turns into some sort of conspiracy thread. <sigh>
Lots of organic places around here that aren't getting raided but if one does because it turns out they are hosting dog fights, selling meth or haven't paid taxes in 10 years I will be sure to post about how they are picking on organic farmers lol.
[quote=MissingAll4Seasons;15152401]Most humans are inherently gullible... we're so gullible that we believe whatever our "authorities" tell us, even though they haven't actually conclusively proven the assumptions they make in their statements. We are so gullible that we continue to believe the "authorities" assertions unquestioningly despite historical conclusive evidence that they are fallible and that their errors have caused illness and death (DDT, Thalidomide, etc).
Let me see if I understand what you are saying here:
I'm from the government, I am here to help.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you mean?
