Social Ecosystems and Chronic Disease

Ok.. you understand processing wheat and sugar.. fruit juice.. you remove the fiber and the sugar goes right into the bloodstream. commercial milk... milk is actually living but pasteurization kills it. All sorts of examples but it's best to eat as close to "raw" as possible.

jerlands wrote:

U.S. Life Expectancy Ranks 26th In The World, OECD Report Shows

That is irrelevant to your false claim that Life Expectancy in 2018 is lower than Life Expectancy in the 1940s (or whenever two generations ago means).

You made a claim that was false. Now we can talk about why US life expectancy is a year or two lower than other countries. I suspect it has more to do with violence and the availability of guns than it does to processed foods which are eaten in other countries.

I don't exactly know what to think of your claim that milk is "actually living". I am perfectly fine eating food that is dead before it hits my plate.

Pasteurization of milk is very clearly a health benefit. It kills foodborne illness, which in my mind is a good thing. I drink milk for calcium, protein and a few vitamins. These are molecules that don't need to be "living" for my body to make good use of.

I haven't seen any legitimate science (i.e. a well done study with a double blind and peer review rather than anecdotal accounts) that suggests a health benefit of raw milk.

I'll try not to be demeaning.. Double/triple blind placebo trials are proven unreliable. There isn't such a study for raw milk because who would fund such a expensive act?

Quote:

I'll try not to be demeaning.. Double/triple blind placebo trials are proven unreliable. There isn't such a study for raw milk because who would fund such a expensive act?

The advantage of a double blind study is that it relies on objective fact rather than on emotion or prejudice. If you feel that your emotions are more reliable, then there is nothing I can say to convince you to look at empirical fact.

You are wrong again... there are well-done scientific double blind studies to ask the question about whether raw milk is beneficial. The results have failed to find the benefits, but the studies have been done.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4890836/


You can demean science as much as you want. Science doesn't care.

And yet... the results are pretty good.

And yet... the results are pretty good.

Not another anti-science argument about tobacco. You might want to learn the history before you go there (peer reviewed science knew that tobacco was dangerous very early, it was stifled).

You are making health claims based on prejudice and emotion. In my opinion, health claims can and should be based on empirical evidence.

Public health should be based on science, not on superstition. Yes, science is occasionally wrong... but it is much less likely to be wrong than just pulling what "feels" right out of the air. And the difference is that science can be tested and corrected.

Science has literally doubled the human life expectancy. Nothing else has done anything close to this.

There are benefits to tobacco.. it's the way it's process, the additives, the filter and the abuse (dependence) that create the problem.

We should choose science over superstition, especially when we are talking about public health... developing plans that will keep hundreds of millions of people safe, and fed.

maxdancona wrote:

We should choose science over superstition, especially when we are talking about public health... developing plans that will keep hundreds of millions of people safe, and fed.

Well lag behind... that's your choice.

jerlands wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

We should choose science over superstition, especially when we are talking about public health... developing plans that will keep hundreds of millions of people safe, and fed.

Well lag behind... that's your choice.

Max's strategy is to string this out until you grow weary of it and drop out. He thinks it makes him the "winner."

Lag behind superstition (as if you think the superstition is usually right). I am OK with that.

Max's strategy is to string this out until you grow weary of it and drop out. He thinks it makes him the "winner."