4 ms·

> The "ones you meet" are the ones who didn't die Can you link to any instances of an outbreak of disease from unpasturized milk among the Amish people? Or eve

> The "ones you meet" are the ones who didn't die Can you link to any instances of an outbreak of disease from unpasturized milk among the Amish people? Or even among the general population? All I know about is one time over 150 years ago the milk got spoiled on a train in Chicago. Which is why we have pasturization. I found this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140832/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140832/, which seems to indicate that raw milk consumption has benefits.

tombert 2y ago
I didn't look because a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. What the parent comment claimed didn't logically follow and I was pointing that out. Your link does seem to indicate potential benefits, so I might give it a read, but I really don't want to get tuberculosis so I probably won't drink raw milk regardless. EDIT: before you accuse me of hypocrisy, I did post a link talking about bovine TB elsewhere in a sister thread.
- briantakita 2y ago
  > I didn't look because a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence I did look & could not find anything. I think marketing fuels a hysteria against raw milk. The reason why vendors say it's "not fit for human consumption" is to avoid action by the regulators. e.g. Having the authorities raid the farm & seize property. https://www.lancasterfarming.com/farming-news/dairy/raid-on-farm-sparks-debate-over-raw-milk-oversight-and-government-overreach/article_002d5ebc-ba30-11ee-8f53-6f93227a52c2.html https://www.lancasterfarming.com/farming-news/dairy/raid-on-... > I really don't want to get tuberculosis so I probably won't drink raw milk regardless Nobody is asking you to. You have the freedom not to consume raw milk. But some people do want to consume raw milk. And there is scant, if any, evidence of the alleged problems. So why are Authorities making this illegal? I doubt it's to "protect public health". The public who wants to drink raw milk don't want the Authorities "protecting their health" in this way.
  - tombert 2y ago
    > Nobody is asking you to. You have the freedom not to consume raw milk. But some people do want to consume raw milk. And there is scant, if any, evidence of the alleged problems. So why are Authorities making this illegal? I doubt it's to "protect public health". The public who wants to drink raw milk don't want the Authorities "protecting their health" in this way. If the the TB is spreadable to non-raw-milk-drinkers then it's ridiculous to act like it doesn't affect me, and the libertarian argument doesn't make sense. I don't give a shit about the health of the people who actually drink the milk, if they want to kill themselves then don't let me stop them, but I don't want them infecting innocent people in the process. This really isn't hard.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - briantakita 2y ago
      > This really isn't hard Yet the governments that you love so much supports Gain of Function Research. Which literally caused Covid among other pandemics. And is suspiciously linked to AIDS. Yet you are worried about unpasturized milk? Your priorities are completely wrong due to your belief in governments. The same governments that cause all wars, genocides, & most pandemics. So I agree...this really isn't hard. Unless you frame things the wrong way.
      - tombert 2y ago
        I "love" the government? That's news to me. I am not sure where you got that information. I don't really know how the government "caused" COVID, unless you're claiming that the Trump administration's handling of it was completely incompetent which led to a lot of unnecessary spreading, which I would agree with. I'll concede that the Reagan administration's handling of the AIDS epidemic was pretty evil. I'm not terribly worried about pasteurized milk, I just said that if something causes TB, and TB can be spread person to person, that's something to consider, and it's not as simple as "if you don't like the risk then don't drink it".

tombert 2y ago

I didn't look because a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. What the parent comment claimed didn't logically follow and I was pointing that out. Your link does seem to indicate potential benefits, so I might give it a read, but I really don't want to get tuberculosis so I probably won't drink raw milk regardless. EDIT: before you accuse me of hypocrisy, I did post a link talking about bovine TB elsewhere in a sister thread.

briantakita 2y ago
> I didn't look because a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence I did look & could not find anything. I think marketing fuels a hysteria against raw milk. The reason why vendors say it's "not fit for human consumption" is to avoid action by the regulators. e.g. Having the authorities raid the farm & seize property. https://www.lancasterfarming.com/farming-news/dairy/raid-on-farm-sparks-debate-over-raw-milk-oversight-and-government-overreach/article_002d5ebc-ba30-11ee-8f53-6f93227a52c2.html https://www.lancasterfarming.com/farming-news/dairy/raid-on-... > I really don't want to get tuberculosis so I probably won't drink raw milk regardless Nobody is asking you to. You have the freedom not to consume raw milk. But some people do want to consume raw milk. And there is scant, if any, evidence of the alleged problems. So why are Authorities making this illegal? I doubt it's to "protect public health". The public who wants to drink raw milk don't want the Authorities "protecting their health" in this way.
- tombert 2y ago
  > Nobody is asking you to. You have the freedom not to consume raw milk. But some people do want to consume raw milk. And there is scant, if any, evidence of the alleged problems. So why are Authorities making this illegal? I doubt it's to "protect public health". The public who wants to drink raw milk don't want the Authorities "protecting their health" in this way. If the the TB is spreadable to non-raw-milk-drinkers then it's ridiculous to act like it doesn't affect me, and the libertarian argument doesn't make sense. I don't give a shit about the health of the people who actually drink the milk, if they want to kill themselves then don't let me stop them, but I don't want them infecting innocent people in the process. This really isn't hard.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - briantakita 2y ago
    > This really isn't hard Yet the governments that you love so much supports Gain of Function Research. Which literally caused Covid among other pandemics. And is suspiciously linked to AIDS. Yet you are worried about unpasturized milk? Your priorities are completely wrong due to your belief in governments. The same governments that cause all wars, genocides, & most pandemics. So I agree...this really isn't hard. Unless you frame things the wrong way.
    - tombert 2y ago
      I "love" the government? That's news to me. I am not sure where you got that information. I don't really know how the government "caused" COVID, unless you're claiming that the Trump administration's handling of it was completely incompetent which led to a lot of unnecessary spreading, which I would agree with. I'll concede that the Reagan administration's handling of the AIDS epidemic was pretty evil. I'm not terribly worried about pasteurized milk, I just said that if something causes TB, and TB can be spread person to person, that's something to consider, and it's not as simple as "if you don't like the risk then don't drink it".