@jeffcliff @sun
Do it!
Studies have found that raw milk contains the enzymes that prevent lactose intolerance; in other words, just not pasteurizing milk allows lactose intolerant “people” to drink it without issue.
https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/updates/raw-milk-and-lactose-intolerance
I also want to point out how hard the propaganda is going against raw milk, it's almost obvious that it's beneficial based on how flimsy the logic behind the attacks on raw milk are.
@jeffcliff @sun
I appreciate your concern, it's very nice to see someone genuinely care so much about everyone and their health.
Some of us can be responsible, it's no different than gun safety and general mindfulness.
In terms of composite risk management we're assessing chance and severity then implementing mitigating measures.
The health benefits are worth discussing as are the over emphasized possible complications you estow.
Also, we knew bird flu thing a while ago, there's a schedule.
I have a body and an immune system that has taken care of that for me for 2-ish decades now.
Raw milk is to good to give up
Unlike the vaccine. May be just coincidence, but still. I'll take them chances.
@jeffcliff @sun
Let's not conflate the governments with the private entities which decide these things; let's also distinguish between a psy-op and the real intentional inoculation of people with these influenza strains as part of some ill understood clandestine plan.
The best information I have is that the very serious H5N1 influenza strain—all influenza infections being potentially lethal—isn't being transmitted by raw milk.
I welcome more information on this matter, if you would share it.
@jeffcliff @sun
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2405495
Let's take a look at this very early research.
Well, as I see it these methods are very flawed.
Allow me to explain my concerns.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12250-020-00230-5
The measurement of 7.33 log10 TCID50/ml is incredibly odd, it's basically at the limits of detection, I have no idea why they'd use the log10 range unless it was to skew results.
It's clear that they isolated the virus from the samples before the mice experiment.
Also, it proves intentional spread.
@jeffcliff @sun
If you have a different interpretation of the data I would love to discuss that with you.
I'll have time to go over these things in more detail Wednesday afternoon, as today I'm rather busy enjoying my day off.
I hope you also have a nice day, and I look forward to your correspondence.
@sun @jeffcliff
That's a possibility, now that you mention it.
I hadn't considered ineffective vaccines as a vector of transmission, I would have hoped dairy farmers would be careful of what they're giving their cattle.
Come to think of it, raw milk in my state is illegal except under very specific circumstances so I'm confident that the few instances where raw milk is accessible would have better cared for cattle.
I'll have to dig into their dataset when I have time.
Just remember to cook your bear meat to temperature.
https://social.hendrixgames.com/objects/f604e6f2-55b2-4e96-b286-80d3e4c615b2
@jeffcliff @sun
Given situation wherein: the farmers' independence and self-determination in so much as they are exercising discretion with outside interference to their operations, it seems we reach different conclusions.
I understand the farmers' concerns after the massive mishandling of recent virological issues by the government; in contrast, you appear to trust the “government” (I'm guessing USDA?) to make correct decisions that will affect the totality of cattle if left unchecked.
@jeffcliff @sun
I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding you.
I read your statement as to mean that not less than 63 herds of cattle in nine states to include the largest cattle (beef and milk) producing states in America need to be slaughtered.
At a more extensive interpretation you might mean all potentially connected cattle in these nine states, or even further.
Clearly I'm mistaken about your meaning and ask you to more clearly define what you mean by “mass culling.”
@jeffcliff @sun
I assert that your estimation of the virulence and mortality rate of H5N1 is inaccurate tantamount to negligent.
I simply cite every influenza outbreak in history, even the most deadly.
I acknowledge openly that the influenza virus has the croen in terms of human deaths by count for all factors on earth, but no event has halved human population.
@jeffcliff @sun
I'm unable to find data substantiating your claims.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/avian-flu-summary.htm
Virulence is how communicable and how severe the virus is.
The influenza virus is indeed moderately virulent, “flu seasons” past saw massive 596.7 deaths per 100,000 population—but that's half a percent… not half of everyone.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6940a5.htm
There's a factor of one-hundred to the mortality rates you're trying to assert.
@jeffcliff @sun
I thought you new what the “H” and “N” stood for, that was an assumption on my part, I apologize for that.
Here's an informative video about why what you just said is patently incorrect.
@jeffcliff @sun
This paper is from 2008 and is an opinion piece.
Is there an updated or non-opinion paper that you'd like to source, instead?
Don't listen to RFK's true running mate telling you to eat bear steaks "blue to rare".
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 3
@jeffcliff @sun
Looks like it'll be an interesting read when it comes out.
Odd that they pandered so openly to the scientific cancer culture—I'm sorry, ‘cancel’ culture with the first sentence.
I'm sure the blurb of conclusion will align with your point of view even though analysis of the methodologies and results will not stand up to scrutiny which will come much too late.