Cow's milk (was 8TH Continent Soymilk )

[Guest guest]

rep, i hope you won't read this as in the nature of telling you what

decision to be making for yourself, but based on my reading, people

seem to way overestimate the health upside of cow's milk. if you can

overlook the site title, there's good info and links off of

http://www.milksucks.com/more.html for one start. hope you find it

useful.

 

 

, reptile grrl

<reptilegoddess> wrote:

> Although I do not have a soy allergy, I began to suspect that soy

was contributing to my ill health when a change in test results

happened to coincide with a month when I ate almost no soy (I have a

blood draw every six weeks). The test results before and after that

particular draw were similar to one another (and not good) and I had

returned to eating a lot of soy.

>

> So, I cut way down on soy. Now, I only eat it every once in awhile,

when there's a particular food that I really want. It's effectively

out of my diet, and that has made a huge difference in my appearance,

my energy level, and in my test results. I feel better, have more

energy, more stable blood pressure,

>

> Although I tried many brands of soy milk, I never found a brand that

had a really good taste. I loved Odwalla Milk, which was a blend of

soy milk, rice milk, and oat milk, but I am apparently the only person

who liked it- it was discontinued. Sales on it were very limited,

largely due to pressure from the dairy industry; the dairy industry

limits how grocery stores can display soy milks. Anyway, because I

never found another good-tasting soy milk, I wasn't drinking as much

milk as I had before. So, I wasn't getting as much calcium as I had

before I gave up dairy. I saw a big difference there also- the

increase in calcium, when I returned ot dairy, improved my menstrual

symptoms.

>

> As to why I think that drinking cow's milk is healthy, I've been

doing a lot of research on raw milk. Before pasteurization, cow's

milk is very similar to human breast milk. Pasteurization and

homogenization destroy enzymes and nutrients which make cow's milk a

healthy food. It's these processes which reduce the healthiness of milk.

>

> Baby calves fed on pasteurized milk sicken and die, because it

doesn't have the nutrients and enzymes that they need to survive.

>

> I used to think that cow's milk was fundamentally unhealthy for

humans to drink, but now I have learned a lot more. It's not cow's

milk that's unhealthy- it's what humans do to it. (And isn't that the

case with most foods?) You can learn more about raw milk at

http://realmilk.com or at the Weston A. Price Foundation website:

http://www.westonaprice.org/ .

>

> It's hard to know what is true and what isn't. Some food faddists

make a lot of outrageous claims- I've seen such claims from

vegetarians and from Atkins dieters, and from peope of various other

dietetic persuasions. So, I urge you not to rely on only one source,

but on many sources and on common sense.

>

> We know that foods lose vitamins & enzymes as they cook. Look what

happens to vegetables when they are boiled to death or canned.

(tomatoes and lycopene seem to be an exception- the lycopene in

tomatoes is more available when the tomatoes are cooked.)

>

> So, I would like to get a few cows of my own (probably miniature

Jerseys) so that I can have raw, fresh certified milk (certified milk

is milk from cow's that have been certified healthy by a veterinarian)

and know that the cows in question are being well-treated. I want to

have my own chickens for the same reason.

>

> Before I purchase cattle, of course, I will try drinking certified

raw milk and see how it works for me. It's not available in my city,

but it can be had in other cities that I occasionally visit.

>

> Btw, I love your Alice Walker sig quote. I'm a big fan of hers. I

posted that quote in my journal and it definitely inspired discussion.

>

> - priscilla

>

>

>

> Kimberly <qterthanu23> wrote:

>

>

> As a macrobiotic I do not use milk of any kind...animal derived or

not. I am curious as to how drinking cows milk is beneficial to your

health. I know I seem skeptical but I honestly have not found any

benefits of drinking another creatures milk intended for their babies.

I would really like some insight on this, if anyone can provide it.

>

>

>

> Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

>

>

[Guest guest]

You're right, fanatics tend to overestimate the advantages of whatever is their

obsession. I noted this in the message to which you are responding.

 

I mean, people like Douglass claim that pasteurized milk causes crib death, and

this is obviously untrue. Likewise, militant vegetarians claim that the human

body is entirely unsuited to eat meat at all, while the Atkins-esque people

claim that a high-meat diet is the natural and healthy one for the human body.

None of them are right.

 

Milksucks.com, for instance, is a poorly researched and often self-contradictory

site. And oh, btw, if the site belongs to friends of yours, you might wish to

tell them that " pus " is not a disease.

 

Wait, I see now- it's a PETA site. Well, I should have known- whenever spurious

claims are made in the name of vegetarianism, PETA is usually behind it. They

make vegetarians look bad.

 

In my experience, one has to wade through the information out there and be wary

of outrageous claims. That's what I do.

 

radcsusa <radcsusa wrote:

rep, i hope you won't read this as in the nature of telling you what

decision to be making for yourself, but based on my reading, people

seem to way overestimate the health upside of cow's milk. if you can

overlook the site title, there's good info and links off of

http://www.milksucks.com/more.html for one start. hope you find it

useful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

 

 

[Guest guest]

well, rep, i just offered it for info's sake, for you to take what you

might find useful and informative and disregard the remainder, but

based on your dripping sarcasm, i infer you chose to regard the entire

thing predjudicially. when i disclaim that i'm not trying to tell you

how to guide your diet, why should it be so difficult to take that at

face value?

 

to illustrate the kind of problem in the discussion, you

contemptuously dismiss them as somehow not understanding pus is not

disease. well, i bet they knew that, but it can also be associated

with diseased conditions, and your answer entirely misses the original

point: it's not something most people would choose to ingest.

 

personally i think peta makes lots of excellent points, and i usually

encounter those kinds of wild, untenable generalities about them out

of meat eaters who would prefer not to weigh their points at all.

 

but fine, suit yourself, though maybe there's limited point in trying

to add that, if you believe exchanges like these are meant to be more

like fights than discussions. sorry if that be the case.

 

 

 

, reptile grrl

<reptilegoddess> wrote:

> You're right, fanatics tend to overestimate the advantages of

whatever is their obsession. I noted this in the message to which you

are responding.

>

> I mean, people like Douglass claim that pasteurized milk causes crib

death, and this is obviously untrue. Likewise, militant vegetarians

claim that the human body is entirely unsuited to eat meat at all,

while the Atkins-esque people claim that a high-meat diet is the

natural and healthy one for the human body. None of them are right.

>

> Milksucks.com, for instance, is a poorly researched and often

self-contradictory site. And oh, btw, if the site belongs to friends

of yours, you might wish to tell them that " pus " is not a disease.

>

> Wait, I see now- it's a PETA site. Well, I should have known-

whenever spurious claims are made in the name of vegetarianism, PETA

is usually behind it. They make vegetarians look bad.

>

> In my experience, one has to wade through the information out there

and be wary of outrageous claims. That's what I do.

>

> radcsusa <radcsusa@n...> wrote:

> rep, i hope you won't read this as in the nature of telling you what

> decision to be making for yourself, but based on my reading, people

> seem to way overestimate the health upside of cow's milk. if you can

> overlook the site title, there's good info and links off of

> http://www.milksucks.com/more.html for one start. hope you find it

> useful.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

>

>

[Guest guest]

reptile grrlwrote:

" You're right, fanatics tend to overestimate the advantages of

whatever is their obsession. I noted this in the message to which

you are responding. "

 

I agree that PETA is often guilty of not doing thorough research and

does lots of things that seem counter-productive for animals rights

causes. But perhaps you are also overestimating the alleged health

benefits of drinking raw cow's milk as well? (Just so you know, the

primary reason I don't consume any dairy is ethics, so I haven't

bothered to research a lot about the specific effect dairy has on

humans).

 

Assuming cow milk is in fact chemically similar to human breast

milk , both are naturally designed to be consumed by infants. The

nutrional needs of infants are very different from adults.

 

Are there any (preferrably recent) scientific studies which compare

the health of people consuming raw milk with that of pas. milk, (or

non-dairy milks for that matter?) The article by Dr. Crewe was

published in 1929 and makes reference only to anecdotes. They use

the same evidence to " prove " the effectiveness of alt. medicine and

remedies. When an individual claims to have improved after milk we

don't know if this is a statisitical anomaly, an effect of consuming

more protein or calories or something else entirely. It has already

been established that animal proteins (including milk) prevent

calcium absorption and that there is a correlation between saturated

fats and heart disease. What are the health benefits inherent to

milk? (Even vitamins A and D are added and b12 can be produced by

algae and in the lab)

 

" I mean, people like Douglass claim that pasteurized milk causes

crib death, and this is obviously untrue. Likewise, militant

vegetarians claim that the human body is entirely unsuited to eat

meat at all, while the Atkins-esque people claim that a high-meat

diet is the natural and healthy one for the human body. None of

them are right. "

 

Show me a human being capable of killing and eating the raw flesh of

a dead animal (with the possible exceptions of fish and arthropods)

without vomitting. Cows are capable of eating the rendered parts of

mammals including their own species but that hardly makes them an

omnivore or biologically designed to be cannibals.

 

" Milksucks.com, for instance, is a poorly researched and often self-

contradictory site. And oh, btw, if the site belongs to friends of

yours, you might wish to tell them that " pus " is not a disease. "

 

True, pus is not a disease, but it has been linked to Crohn's

Disease. Just because the site is poorly edited or inaccurate about

some things does not mean every argument they make is wrong.

 

> In my experience, one has to wade through the information out

there and be wary of outrageous claims. That's what I do.

 

Right, your views in no way bias your selective consumption of

research. Everyone else is taken in by these outrageous claims, but

you are somehow immune. ::rolls eyes::

[Guest guest]

radcsusa <radcsusa wrote:

>well, rep, i just offered it for info's sake, for you to take what you might

find useful and informative and disregard the remainder,

 

Oh, I know

 

>i infer you chose to regard the entire thing predjudicially.

 

Oh, not at all. I've seen that site before, way back when I gave up dairy. I'm

not regarding it at all prejudicially; quite the contrary: I am regarding it as

someone who has already seen that material, educated herself, and found most of

that material to be false.

 

I used to be a member of PETA. Way back when I first went vegetarian (15 years

ago, now) they were less radical and seemed more grounded in reality. As I've

gotten older & wiser, though, it seems that PETA has become less and less in

touch with reality. I've spoken to other people who left the organization, too,

for the same reasons.

 

For example, a few years ago, PETA published an anti-milk poster that claimed

that cows are shot up with hormones, in order to create a state of artificial

pregnancy, so that they will continue to produce milk. This is patently false,

and in making this poster, PETA was deliberately taking advantage of urban

dwellers who don't know how nature actually works.

 

>when i disclaim that i'm not trying to tell you

how to guide your diet, why should it be so difficult to take that at face

value?

 

I did take it at face value. In fact, I just rescanned my email below, and

nowhere did I say or indicate that you were trying to tell me how or what to

eat. Nor was I sarcastic, as you claimed.

 

Regarding pus: what PETA does not say is that it's not necessary to have pus in

milk. A healthy cow's milk doesn't have pus in it. There may be a small amount

of suspended live white blood cells, because it's the job of milk to pass on

immunity to calves. Pus and other dead leucocytes occur in milk when the milk

comes from an unhealthy cow, and when the milk is pasteurized.

 

PETA isn't giving anyone the big picture. By employing falsehoods, they give

all vegetarians a bad name.

 

>personally i think peta makes lots of excellent points, and i usually encounter

those kinds of wild, untenable generalities about them out of meat eaters who

would prefer not to weigh their points at all.

 

Well, I'm not making wild, untenable generalities: I am speaking from a POV of a

longtime vegetarian who really educates herself. I used to believe everything

that PETA told me- then I started seeing lots of untruths in their advertising.

Those untruths made me examine other things they said, and I learned that lots

of those are untrue also.

 

>but fine, suit yourself, though maybe there's limited point in trying to add

that, if you believe exchanges like these are meant to be more like fights than

discussions. sorry if that be the case.

 

Well, of course, I will suit myself, and I think that you should do likewise.

However, I think that your accusations are out of line: so far you have accused

me of being sarcastic, of being ignorant, and by implication of " fighting " . My

email to you was polite, but I do happen to disagree and I do know a lot about

the subject. If my disagreement angers you, then that really is your issue and

not mine.

 

- priscilla

 

 

 

 

Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

 

 

[Guest guest]

nice post, amanda -- straightforward, polite, factual, well informed.

 

priscilla, just so you understand, i read your sarcasm (mild, but

still real) into comments like

 

" Well, I should have known- whenever spurious claims are made in the

name of vegetarianism, PETA is usually behind it " , and

 

" And oh, btw, if the site belongs to friends of yours, you might wish

to tell them that " pus " is not a disease " .

 

not only are huge, sweeping generalities like the first item not true

nor defensible, but descriptions like " militant " and " fanatics [who]

tend to overestimate the advantages of whatever is their obsession "

aren't, imho, much better.

 

this is where one gets the impression of fight; as for ignorance, i

neither called you that nor implied the idea, i respect that you're

somewhat informed (though it's been usefully pointed out to you that

you were way wrong on things like cows not being shot up with hormones).

 

you're also wrong to say i called you ignorant, i never used the word

not implied the idea. i did suggest your comment on pus missed the

point, but that's different. hope we can avoid such misunderstandings

in future :-)

 

 

 

, reptile grrl

<reptilegoddess> wrote:

>

> radcsusa <radcsusa@n...> wrote:

> >well, rep, i just offered it for info's sake, for you to take what

you might find useful and informative and disregard the remainder,

>

> Oh, I know

>

> >i infer you chose to regard the entire thing predjudicially.

>

> Oh, not at all. I've seen that site before, way back when I gave up

dairy. I'm not regarding it at all prejudicially; quite the contrary:

I am regarding it as someone who has already seen that material,

educated herself, and found most of that material to be false.

>

> I used to be a member of PETA. Way back when I first went

vegetarian (15 years ago, now) they were less radical and seemed more

grounded in reality. As I've gotten older & wiser, though, it seems

that PETA has become less and less in touch with reality. I've spoken

to other people who left the organization, too, for the same reasons.

>

> For example, a few years ago, PETA published an anti-milk poster

that claimed that cows are shot up with hormones, in order to create a

state of artificial pregnancy, so that they will continue to produce

milk. This is patently false, and in making this poster, PETA was

deliberately taking advantage of urban dwellers who don't know how

nature actually works.

>

> >when i disclaim that i'm not trying to tell you

> how to guide your diet, why should it be so difficult to take that

at face value?

>

> I did take it at face value. In fact, I just rescanned my email

below, and nowhere did I say or indicate that you were trying to tell

me how or what to eat. Nor was I sarcastic, as you claimed.

>

> Regarding pus: what PETA does not say is that it's not necessary to

have pus in milk. A healthy cow's milk doesn't have pus in it. There

may be a small amount of suspended live white blood cells, because

it's the job of milk to pass on immunity to calves. Pus and other

dead leucocytes occur in milk when the milk comes from an unhealthy

cow, and when the milk is pasteurized.

>

> PETA isn't giving anyone the big picture. By employing falsehoods,

they give all vegetarians a bad name.

>

> >personally i think peta makes lots of excellent points, and i

usually encounter those kinds of wild, untenable generalities about

them out of meat eaters who would prefer not to weigh their points at

all.

>

> Well, I'm not making wild, untenable generalities: I am speaking

from a POV of a longtime vegetarian who really educates herself. I

used to believe everything that PETA told me- then I started seeing

lots of untruths in their advertising. Those untruths made me examine

other things they said, and I learned that lots of those are untrue also.

>

> >but fine, suit yourself, though maybe there's limited point in

trying to add that, if you believe exchanges like these are meant to

be more like fights than discussions. sorry if that be the case.

>

> Well, of course, I will suit myself, and I think that you should do

likewise. However, I think that your accusations are out of line: so

far you have accused me of being sarcastic, of being ignorant, and by

implication of " fighting " . My email to you was polite, but I do

happen to disagree and I do know a lot about the subject. If my

disagreement angers you, then that really is your issue and not mine.

>

> - priscilla

>

>

, reptile grrl

<reptilegoddess> wrote:

> You're right, fanatics tend to overestimate the advantages of

whatever is their obsession. I noted this in the message to which you

are responding.

>

> I mean, people like Douglass claim that pasteurized milk causes crib

death, and this is obviously untrue. Likewise, militant vegetarians

claim that the human body is entirely unsuited to eat meat at all,

while the Atkins-esque people claim that a high-meat diet is the

natural and healthy one for the human body. None of them are right.

>

> Milksucks.com, for instance, is a poorly researched and often

self-contradictory site. And oh, btw, if the site belongs to friends

of yours, you might wish to tell them that " pus " is not a disease.

>

> Wait, I see now- it's a PETA site. Well, I should have known-

whenever spurious claims are made in the name of vegetarianism, PETA

is usually behind it. They make vegetarians look bad.

>

> In my experience, one has to wade through the information out there

and be wary of outrageous claims. That's what I do.

>

> radcsusa <radcsusa@n...> wrote:

> rep, i hope you won't read this as in the nature of telling you what

> decision to be making for yourself, but based on my reading, people

> seem to way overestimate the health upside of cow's milk. if you can

> overlook the site title, there's good info and links off of

> http://www.milksucks.com/more.html for one start. hope you find it

> useful.

>

[Guest guest]

dave <dave4sale wrote:

>But perhaps you are also overestimating the alleged >health benefits of

drinking raw cow's milk as well?

 

What health benefits have I actually ascribed to raw milk?

 

For the record, I don't think that raw milk will cure cancer or any other

disease, or anything like that. I *do* think that it is common sense that raw

milk is higher in nutrients and enzymes than is cooked milk. I also think that

raw milk will not make lactose intolerant people ill. Cats are lactose

intolerant, and they drink raw milk with no problems.

 

>(Just so you know, the

>primary reason I don't consume any dairy is ethics,

 

Ah, so is tht why you were working at McDonald's?

 

>Assuming cow milk is in fact chemically similar to human breast >milk , both

are naturally designed to be consumed by infants. >The nutrional needs of

infants are very different from adults.

 

 

Actually, human milk is very nutritious, both for adults and humans. Among my

native tribe and many others, older children (up to age 12) were breast fed

during times of famine. In other aboriginal tribes, warriors consume breast

milk to fortify themselves before going on journeys.

 

Whether or not something is 'naturally designed' for human consumption really

has no bearing on whether or not people eat it, or whether it is nutritious.

Other animals, too, will eat things not 'naturally designed' for their

consumption.

 

>Are there any (preferrably recent) scientific studies which >compare the health

of people consuming raw milk with that of >pas. milk, (or non-dairy milks for

that matter?)

 

Probably, but I really can't recall. I think such a study would be a great

idea! The biggest obstacle, imo, to be overcome is the pressure that

agribusiness puts on agencies like the FDA.

 

>It has already been established that animal proteins (including >milk) prevent

calcium absorption and that there is a >correlation between saturated fats and

heart disease.

 

Once upon a time, it was established that we needed to have a serving of meat at

every meal to be healthy. It was also firmly established that the earth was

flat. Many doctors are now questioning the saturated fat and heart disease

correlation.

 

>(Even vitamins A and D are added and b12 can be produced by

>algae and in the lab)

 

I'm sure you know that supplementation is never as good as getting your vitamins

from whole foods.

 

>Show me a human being capable of killing and eating the raw >flesh of a dead

animal (with the possible exceptions of fish >and arthropods) without vomitting.

 

Well, Jade Blue Eclipse (the performer) does it all the time. I disagree with

what she does, and I think it's cruel and wrong, but she does it and she doesn't

vomit.

 

>Right, your views in no way bias your selective consumption of

>research.

 

It's exactly the opposite: my current views were *formed* by research. I used

to be vegan; my views since then have changed as I have become more educated.

 

 

 

 

Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

 

 

[Guest guest]

The site/s you linked to " inform " others in this forum claims there

are health benefits to raw milk. (with only anecdotal evidence of

course).

 

> What health benefits have I actually ascribed to raw milk?

>

> Ah, so is tht why you were working at McDonald's?

 

I was working at mc donalds before I went vegan. I started working

when I was still eating meat. Then after learning some things about

the pain and suffering endured by animals I went vegetarian. I quit

Mc D's AS SOON as I could find another job. Rent and groceries

don't pay for themselves. We aren't all little rich kids that can

be supported by our parents and wait around for the ideal job. Oh

I'm sorry, am I making unfair assumptions about you? Well, you are

making a very unfair assumption about me, implying I had some choice

in where I worked.

 

> >Assuming cow milk is in fact chemically similar to human breast

>milk , both are naturally designed to be consumed by infants. >The

nutrional needs of infants are very different from adults.

>

>

 

In famine.... that means, it is by no means their first choice.

Just because you can survive on something hardly makes it a " very

nutritious " food. People can survive on potato chips and candy for

a long time, but their health will hardly be as good as it could be.

 

 

> Actually, human milk is very nutritious, both for adults and

humans. Among my native tribe and many others, older children (up

to age 12) were breast fed during times of famine. In other

aboriginal tribes, warriors consume breast milk to fortify

themselves before going on journeys.

>

> Whether or not something is 'naturally designed' for human

consumption really has no bearing on whether or not people eat it,

or whether it is nutritious. Other animals, too, will eat things

not 'naturally designed' for their consumption.

 

It's called evolution. People haven't been consuming cow's milk or

any other animal milk long enough for them to have been naturally

selected to have biologies well adapted to benefit from cow's milk.

Cows are very distantly related to us.

 

 

>

> >Are there any (preferrably recent) scientific studies which

>compare the health of people consuming raw milk with that of >pas.

milk, (or non-dairy milks for that matter?)

 

 

> Probably, but I really can't recall. I think such a study would

be a great idea! The biggest obstacle, imo, to be overcome is the

pressure that agribusiness puts on agencies like the FDA.

>

> >It has already been established that animal proteins (including

>milk) prevent calcium absorption and that there is a >correlation

between saturated fats and heart disease.

 

 

You claim your views are based on research, yet the volumes of

research that contradict your views are faulty and you are unable to

supply a single scientific study that backs up your claims.

 

> Once upon a time, it was established that we needed to have a

serving of meat at every meal to be healthy. It was also firmly

established that the earth was flat. Many doctors are now

questioning the saturated fat and heart disease correlation.

>

Simply because " many doctors " question something isn't evidence.

Many doctors still insist Atkin's is healthy and that meat is

essential to the human diet. The only thing I will agree with is

that not ALL saturated fats correlate with heart disease. They've

found that plant saturated fats (i.e. in coconut oils) do not raise

one's " bad " cholesterol. This has not been shown to be the case for

the saturated fat found in meat, dairy, or egg yolks.

 

> >(Even vitamins A and D are added and b12 can be produced by

> >algae and in the lab)

>

> I'm sure you know that supplementation is never as good as getting

your vitamins from whole foods.

>

Again, where is your evidence for this? You continue to spout out

your opinions as if they were facts, despite the reality that have

no credible research behind them. Besides, that you're missing the

point. Milk doesn't have these vitamins in them! So there's no

vitamins that one can gain by drinking milk.

 

 

> >Right, your views in no way bias your selective consumption of

> >research.

>

> It's exactly the opposite: my current views were *formed* by

research. I used to be vegan; my views since then have changed as I

have become more educated.

 

Educated by what? What research? You cannot provide any studies to

back up your claims. Furthermore, you dispute the currently

predominate findings and instead insist that a couple of studies

that may or may not exist prove them wrong. I am in no way saying

that it's your fault if they haven't even done scientific studies

that test the effects of consuming raw milk, but when lacking such

evidence why do you continue to insist that your views must be

correct?