SpawnPoint - Where Game Begins

Quote from tonnytay60 2012-01-05 20:57:37
Drink Raw milk than.
I did a little research a few weeks ago regarding Raw Milk, And apparently It's alot more nutitional for us, It has like 3x the calcium, Amaazing healing Properities, 2x the protein than pasturized milk, It's pure organic, No genetic Tweaking.

And before Anyone tells me that it has bacteria that can kill you, I've personally tried a half-gallon raw milk and drank in like a week and i'm still alive and well.

Quote:

i did not drink milk for a month.

Milk is Bad for you!!!!
I have drunk milk for many years.But recently i stop drinking it ,because some reports claim that something dangeous have been added into milk.orz.

Milk is Bad for you!!!!
I have drunk milk for many years.But recently i stop drinking it ,because some reports claim that something dangeous have been added into milk.orz.

I don't think that's a fair assumption, Xem. To say that you can't get sick from drinking raw milk is just plain wrong. You're exposed to a whole new category of potential harm when consuming only raw milk (it's not processed and, thus, not screened for these things).

So there's a trade off. You can drink what the producers think you need (as said above, 'orz' or other stuffs :P), or you can take the negative health risk.

To back up my case, I'll direct you to here.

If both the CDC and the FDA are warning people about the dangers of drinking unpasteurized milk, I think there's something to it. However, please not that the number of illnesses and deaths relating to raw milk, over the course of nearly 13 years, is very small. So, what I'm saying is there is a direct risk, albeit small, when drinking raw milk.

I wouldn't blame the scientists, though there are some that will try to make more of a study that it merits. Usually because they have a vested interest or the people paying for the research do.

Studies on painkillers are a good example, each tests their own painkiller when compared to others and in each study their own painkiller comes out best, so all painkillers are better than all the other ones. That obviously doesn't make any sense but if you set up your study in the right way then it's easy to achieve, like giving people a lower dose of the other drugs and more of the one you are supposed to be testing. Funnily enough studies done by drug companies on their own products are almost always more positive than independent studies.

This is why it's important that studies are published and peer reviewed before people take their conclusions as fact. It's also good to know who is paying for the study.

The main problem in these scare stories is the way they are reported in the media. Sometimes it's just down to scientific ignorance of a journalist but usually it's just because a sensational headline is much more appealing to readers than what studies actually show. This is a good example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2053486/cannabis-joint-cause-psychiatric-episodes-similar-schizophrenia-damaging-memory.html

The initial headline was "Just ONE cannabis joint "can bring on schizophrenia" as well as damage memory". Note phrases like "Strongest evidence yet, claim scientists". Actually the study wasn't about cannabis, smoking or schizophrenia and the lead author of the study said he was "disappointed but not surprised" by the article.

Antioxidants is another interesting example. You've probably seen various adverts for food boasting about how their products are high in antioxidants and they used to say that antioxidants prevent cancer. It was found that antioxidants in the body do play a role in preventing cancer, so the reasoning was that eating lots of them would help prevent cancer. The problem was that the only long term study into the health benefits of a diet high in antioxidants had to be stopped, because it turned out that that the people in the study were getting cancer more often than they should. But products still use antioxidants as a marketing tool.

So I think I'll keep drinking milk until I see some proper evidence.

To back up my case, I'll direct you to here.

If both the CDC and the FDA are warning people about the dangers of drinking unpasteurized milk, I think there's something to it. However, please not that the number of illnesses and deaths relating to raw milk, over the course of nearly 13 years, is very small. So, what I'm saying is there is a direct risk, albeit small, when drinking raw milk.

You know, most dentists/doctors know what they're talking about when they say "do y twice daily and you'll be fine." It's the idiots who don't follow their directions, lose their "x" (as you say) and then have the audacity to claim that the system is at fault that taint the association's image. It's called insurance fraud, not false information. The FDA and the CDC exist to help people, I'm not sure why they would ever falsify information.

Yes, it's quite impossible for a company to be perfect (money is everything), but I seriously doubt that this is a case where milk producers are paying off the CDC or FDA to publish false findings.