I got raw milk !!!!

[Hypergamous]

 

[JLAIRE]

View attachment 443425

Goatis milk

 

[Hypergamous]

Goatis milk

raw fermented

 

[Hypergamous]

im gonna drink fully fasted

 

[gorenoise]

View attachment 443425

GOAT milk

 

[Mystericus]

View attachment 443425

Zero benefit

you're drinking cow shit

 

[arielle mae]

View attachment 443425

oh my god I'm gonna throw up

 

[Hypergamous]

Zero benefit

you're drinking cow shit

n***a didnt even read the bottle

 

[Hypergamous]

oh my god I'm gonna throw up

avi contradictory

 

[Hypergamous]

oh my god I'm gonna throw up

n***a has a homelander avi talking bout throwing up over milk, what a discrace u are

 

[Mystericus]

n***a didnt even read the bottle

?

 

[arielle mae]

goat milk is RANCID cow is better

n***a has a homelander avi talking bout throwing up over milk, what a discrace u are

 

[arielle mae]

avi contradictory

avi is homie because he's crackable

 

[Hypergamous]

goat milk is RANCID cow is better

its all the same shit, goat milk is actually more nutrient dense and raw milk is illegal in canada to sell for human consumption

 

[Hypergamous]

?

you said Im drinking strait cow shit and the bottle says goats milk

 

[Mystericus]

you said Im drinking strait cow shit and the bottle says goats milk

Then you're drinking goats shit. I'll give the benefit of the doubt you've ensured whomever you're buying it from has at-least cleaned the goat's udders, but it's still pointless: raw milk has no benefits, and puts you in danger.

And maybe it tastes nice, even i agree raw milk tastes nice; I've had it before & enjoyed it. Does that mean you should drink it? Or that it's healthy for you? No; there's overwhelming evidence that shows it's inherently dangerous. The only real "benefit" is that there's enzymes that aid digestion in raw milk, however, this doesn't make it better, nor does the minuscule nutrient degradation from pasteurization make normal milk worse.

I know it's attractive to believe you've uncovered some secret super-drink that'll make you healthy, but when there's 100s of years worth of isolated instances regarding raw milk's dangerous outcomes when consumed, what are you even doing?

If you've looked into historical examples of evidence/narrative manipulation, you'd know that altering results and straight-up fabricating studies at a global scale is impossible

 

[Hypergamous]

Then you're drinking goats shit. I'll give the benefit of the doubt you've ensured whomever you're buying it from has at-least cleaned the goat's udders, but it's still pointless: raw milk has no benefits, and puts you in danger.

And maybe it tastes nice, even i agree raw milk tastes nice; I've had it before & enjoyed it. Does that mean you should drink it? Or that it's healthy for you? No; there's overwhelming evidence that shows it's inherently dangerous. The only real "benefit" is that there's enzymes that aid digestion in raw milk, however, this doesn't make it better, nor does the minuscule nutrient degradation from pasteurization make normal milk worse.

I know it's attractive to believe you've uncovered some secret super-drink that'll make you healthy, but when there's 100s of years worth of isolated instances regarding raw milk's dangerous outcomes when consumed, what are you even doing?

If you've looked into historical examples of evidence/narrative manipulation, you'd know that altering results and straight-up fabricating studies at a global scale is impossible

this is an insane level of fear mongering, I'm sorry but I just don't have the same perspective, there are an overwhelming amount of studies on children and animals that prove drinking unpasteurized milk has a major positive impact on bone development, especially height.

 

[Mystericus]

this is an insane level of fear mongering, I'm sorry but I just don't have the same perspective, there are an overwhelming amount of studies on children and animals that prove drinking unpasteurized milk has a major positive impact on bone development, especially height.

There's hardly any that follow standard testing protocol

link some

 

[Hypergamous]

There's hardly any that follow standard testing protocol

link some

 

[Rololongs]

View attachment 443425

Plastic not raw anymore you lost

 

[Hypergamous]

There's hardly any that follow standard testing protocol

link some

 

[Hypergamous]

Plastic not raw anymore you lost

slight nerf ig

 

[Mystericus]

These are youtube videos, not studies. I doubt you've even read any studies if you're attaching youtube videos... Why do i even bother

 

[Hypergamous]

These are youtube videos, not studies. I doubt you've even read any studies if you're attaching youtube videos... Why do i even bother

are you fucking dumb? these are studies that were recorded, you can do the research and youll find the same results.

 

[Mystericus]

are you fucking dumb? these are studies that were recorded, you can do the research and youll find the same results.

If you can't even link an article that supports your points it's over. I'd like to see any reasoning against:

Research Anthology: Raw Milk

Access a research anthology about the dangers of raw milk consumption

www.cdc.gov

 

[Hypergamous]

If you can't even link an article that supports your points it's over. I'd like to see any reasoning against:

Research Anthology: Raw Milk

Access a research anthology about the dangers of raw milk consumption

www.cdc.gov

.gov r we serious

 

[Mystericus]

.gov r we serious

Yes. Do you have any argument against what it says asides from "Muh government lies!!"

 

[Hypergamous]

Yes. Do you have any argument against what it says asides from "Muh government lies!!"

so raw milk is illegal, but alcohol, refined seed oils, ultra prossessed sugar is okay, got it buddy

 

[Mystericus]

so raw milk is illegal, but alcohol, refined seed oils, ultra prossessed sugar is okay, got it buddy

I never stated the government's some moral good, nor that they've restricted & advised against the sale of raw milk for "The good of the citizens" - the reason they've been so heavy on regulating raw-milk is because there's no real beneficial outcome; the socioeconomics of raw-milk consuming demographics aren't attractive to major healthcare corporations: they're largely poorer, more rural, and distrusting people - rather than the type who'd pay for a full treatment plan if they were to fall ill from drinking unpasteurized milk.

Also, subsequent of their working-class nature, it's not an ideal outcome their numbers should dwindle. And raw-milk epidemics are a royal pain in the ass for the government to handle because they rapidly spiral out of control & cost large amounts of money to contain:

Outbreak of Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Campylobacter jejuni Infections Associated with Raw Milk Consumption from a Herdshare Dairy — Colorado, 2016 - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Cost Estimates of Foodborne Illnesses | Economic Research Service

The Cost Estimates of Foodborne Illnesses data product provides estimates of the cost of foodborne illnesses in the United States. Total and per-case costs are provided for foodborne illness as a whole, and for individual pathogens.

www.ers.usda.gov

Obesity, alcoholism, and addictive-foods on the other hand are the exact opposite: they're self-contained from person-to-person, warrant profit for the manufacturers, have a strong social acceptance, and directly profit healthcare corporations due to the long-set nature of adverse effects & the consequential treatments provided; obesity/liver-failure > E.coli for profit.

And seed oils aren't all bad, I'm skeptical of some data regarding them because they directly profit corporations like McDonald's, but there's no genuine evidence of any sort of short-term consumption being inherently harmful; because most seed-oil related studies focus on typical junk food, it's hard to conclude it's the seed oils alone that are responsible for some of the reported side-effects.

TLDR; raw milk's not profitable since the dangers (not the benefits) don't aid the economy or government, that's why it's heavily restricted

 

[Mystericus]

I never stated the government's some moral good, nor that they've restricted & advised against the sale of raw milk for "The good of the citizens" - the reason they've been so heavy on regulating raw-milk is because there's no real beneficial outcome; the socioeconomics of raw-milk consuming demographics aren't attractive to major healthcare corporations: they're largely poorer, more rural, and distrusting people - rather than the type who'd pay for a full treatment plan if they were to fall ill from drinking unpasteurized milk.

Also, subsequent of their working-class nature, it's not an ideal outcome their numbers should dwindle. And raw-milk epidemics are a royal pain in the ass for the government to handle because they rapidly spiral out of control & cost large amounts of money to contain:

Outbreak of Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Campylobacter jejuni Infections Associated with Raw Milk Consumption from a Herdshare Dairy — Colorado, 2016 - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Cost Estimates of Foodborne Illnesses | Economic Research Service

The Cost Estimates of Foodborne Illnesses data product provides estimates of the cost of foodborne illnesses in the United States. Total and per-case costs are provided for foodborne illness as a whole, and for individual pathogens.

www.ers.usda.gov

Obesity, alcoholism, and addictive-foods on the other hand are the exact opposite: they're self-contained from person-to-person, warrant profit for the manufacturers, have a strong social acceptance, and directly profit healthcare corporations due to the long-set nature of adverse effects & the consequential treatments provided; obesity/liver-failure > E.coli for profit.

And seed oils aren't all bad, I'm skeptical of some data regarding them because they directly profit corporations like McDonald's, but there's no genuine evidence of any sort of short-term consumption being inherently harmful; because most seed-oil related studies focus on typical junk food, it's hard to conclude it's the seed oils alone that are responsible for some of the reported side-effects.

TLDR; raw milk's not profitable since the dangers (not the benefits) don't aid the economy or government, that's why it's heavily restricted

@Hypergamous read

 

[Hypergamous]

@Hypergamous read

hold up im on a call

 

[Hypergamous]

I never stated the government's some moral good, nor that they've restricted & advised against the sale of raw milk for "The good of the citizens" - the reason they've been so heavy on regulating raw-milk is because there's no real beneficial outcome; the socioeconomics of raw-milk consuming demographics aren't attractive to major healthcare corporations: they're largely poorer, more rural, and distrusting people - rather than the type who'd pay for a full treatment plan if they were to fall ill from drinking unpasteurized milk.

Also, subsequent of their working-class nature, it's not an ideal outcome their numbers should dwindle. And raw-milk epidemics are a royal pain in the ass for the government to handle because they rapidly spiral out of control & cost large amounts of money to contain:

Outbreak of Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Campylobacter jejuni Infections Associated with Raw Milk Consumption from a Herdshare Dairy — Colorado, 2016 - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Cost Estimates of Foodborne Illnesses | Economic Research Service

The Cost Estimates of Foodborne Illnesses data product provides estimates of the cost of foodborne illnesses in the United States. Total and per-case costs are provided for foodborne illness as a whole, and for individual pathogens.

www.ers.usda.gov

Obesity, alcoholism, and addictive-foods on the other hand are the exact opposite: they're self-contained from person-to-person, warrant profit for the manufacturers, have a strong social acceptance, and directly profit healthcare corporations due to the long-set nature of adverse effects & the consequential treatments provided; obesity/liver-failure > E.coli for profit.

And seed oils aren't all bad, I'm skeptical of some data regarding them because they directly profit corporations like McDonald's, but there's no genuine evidence of any sort of short-term consumption being inherently harmful; because most seed-oil related studies focus on typical junk food, it's hard to conclude it's the seed oils alone that are responsible for some of the reported side-effects.

TLDR; raw milk's not profitable since the dangers (not the benefits) don't aid the economy or government, that's why it's heavily restricted

I was reading until you said seed oils aren't all bad. you've got good points but your exaggerating the risk level for contamination, if its sold so our dogs and cats can consume it then so can we, there are major benefits to raw milk, same with unpasteurized honey, everything raw is more nutrient dense. I'm not advocating for raw meat because the risk of contamination is much higher

 

[Hypergamous]

I was reading until you said seed oils aren't all bad. you've got good points but your exaggerating the risk level for contamination, if its sold so our dogs and cats can consume it then so can we, there are major benefits to raw milk, same with unpasteurized honey, everything raw is more nutrient dense. I'm not advocating for raw meat because the risk of contamination is much higher

@Mystericus READ

 

[Mystericus]

I was reading until you said seed oils aren't all bad

Then you're just ignorant. The data against is as limited as the data for them - go ahead and read the studies & then tell me your thoughts. Seed oils themselves aren't inherently dangerous, but the processing practices should be investigated further, and so should higher-quality studies that isolate seed oils from junk food be conducted

you've got good points but your exaggerating the risk level for contamination,

I'm not. "unpasteurized milk, consumed by only 3.2% of the population, and cheese, consumed by only 1.6% of the population, caused 96% of the illnesses caused by contaminated dairy products."

Outbreak-Related Disease Burden Associated with Consumption of Unpasteurized Cow’s Milk and Cheese, United States, 2009–2014 - PMC

The growing popularity of unpasteurized milk in the United States raises public health concerns. We estimated outbreak-related illnesses and hospitalizations caused by the consumption of cow’s milk and cheese contaminated with Shiga toxin–producing ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

if its sold so our dogs and cats can consume it then so can we

What kind of argument is this? We're humans, not dogs, nor felines

there are major benefits to raw milk, same with unpasteurized honey, everything raw is more nutrient dense

It's negligible, if not completely fabricated, "benefits" -

The table you attached has no source, and the website's dead, so it's pointless. The concrete benefits only show minor nutrient profile increases that are irreverent unless your diet consists of milk & milk alone:

Spoiler: Degradation information - NZ study

"The two major groups of milk protein are casein (80% of the milk protein) and whey protein
(about 20%). Pasteurisation has little impact on casein structure and cause minor changes to
whey protein structure (Braun-Fahrlaender and von Mutius, 2011, Claeys et al. 2012).
Casein molecules are precursors of several bioactive peptides, which are inactive in the native
protein, but have a physiological effect in the body after digestion (Claeys et al. 2012).
Animal studies showed no difference in protein efficiency ratio and protein digestibility
between raw and pasteurised bovine milk (Efigenia et al., 1997; Lacroix et al., 2006). In a
human study, Lacroix et al. (2008) observed the same metabolic utilisation of milk protein for
both raw and pasteurised milk.
Only small losses (1-4%) of the available amount of essential amino acids, including lysine,
were observed after heating (pasteurisation), and the effect appears to be negligible when
compared with raw milk levels (Erbersdobler et al., 2002; Souci et al., 2008)."

https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/1119/direct

 

[Hypergamous]

Then you're just ignorant. The data against is as limited as the data for them - go ahead and read the studies & then tell me your thoughts. Seed oils themselves aren't inherently dangerous, but the processing practices should be investigated further, and so should higher-quality studies that isolate seed oils from junk food be conducted


I'm not. "unpasteurized milk, consumed by only 3.2% of the population, and cheese, consumed by only 1.6% of the population, caused 96% of the illnesses caused by contaminated dairy products."

Outbreak-Related Disease Burden Associated with Consumption of Unpasteurized Cow’s Milk and Cheese, United States, 2009–2014 - PMC

The growing popularity of unpasteurized milk in the United States raises public health concerns. We estimated outbreak-related illnesses and hospitalizations caused by the consumption of cow’s milk and cheese contaminated with Shiga toxin–producing ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What kind of argument is this? We're humans, not dogs, nor felines


It's negligible, if not completely fabricated, "benefits" -

The table you attached has no source, and the website's dead, so it's pointless. The concrete benefits only show minor nutrient profile increases that are irreverent unless your diet consists of milk & milk alone:

Spoiler: Degradation information - NZ study

"The two major groups of milk protein are casein (80% of the milk protein) and whey protein
(about 20%). Pasteurisation has little impact on casein structure and cause minor changes to
whey protein structure (Braun-Fahrlaender and von Mutius, 2011, Claeys et al. 2012).
Casein molecules are precursors of several bioactive peptides, which are inactive in the native
protein, but have a physiological effect in the body after digestion (Claeys et al. 2012).
Animal studies showed no difference in protein efficiency ratio and protein digestibility
between raw and pasteurised bovine milk (Efigenia et al., 1997; Lacroix et al., 2006). In a
human study, Lacroix et al. (2008) observed the same metabolic utilisation of milk protein for
both raw and pasteurised milk.
Only small losses (1-4%) of the available amount of essential amino acids, including lysine,
were observed after heating (pasteurisation), and the effect appears to be negligible when
compared with raw milk levels (Erbersdobler et al., 2002; Souci et al., 2008)."

https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/1119/direct

im gonna contaminate your hymen if you keep sending bullshit studies from paid off doctors

 

[Hypergamous]

im gonna contaminate your hymen if you keep sending bullshit studies from paid off doctors

View attachment 443425

5.0 out of 5 stars

Big​

Big Country Raw Milk has received positive reviews from customers, with a 5.0 out of 5 stars rating based on 16 reviews. Customers appreciate the product's quality and freshness, noting that it is sourced from a Canadian dairy and is free of antibiotics and hormones. The raw goat milk is praised for its probiotic content, which can aid in transitioning to a raw diet and preventing digestive upset. It is also noted for being rich in lactase enzymes, making it easier for pets to digest. @Mystericus

 

[👑Ghost]

it's still going?

 

[Mystericus]

im gonna contaminate your hymen if you keep sending bullshit studies from paid off doctors

Paid off by who? Big milk?

You've got zero basis to make these claims. I intentionally attached a NZ study since it's a different nation, with different standards, who've come to (more or less) the same conclusion as the CDC & FDA.

If you'd even read the PDF you'd know it also documents instances of raw milk being beneficial; because it's not some one-sided study that only focuses on the immediate bad's

5.0 out of 5 stars

Big​

Big Country Raw Milk has received positive reviews from customers, with a 5.0 out of 5 stars rating based on 16 reviews. Customers appreciate the product's quality and freshness, noting that it is sourced from a Canadian dairy and is free of antibiotics and hormones. The raw goat milk is praised for its probiotic content, which can aid in transitioning to a raw diet and preventing digestive upset. It is also noted for being rich in lactase enzymes, making it easier for pets to digest. @Mystericus

Are you taking the piss? We're not debating the reputation of the seller here

 

[Hypergamous]

Paid off by who? Big milk?

You've got zero basis to make these claims. I intentionally attached a NZ study since it's a different nation, with different standards, who've come to (more or less) the same conclusion as the CDC & FDA.

If you'd even read the PDF you'd know it also documents instances of raw milk being beneficial; because it's not some one-sided study that only focuses on the immediate bad's


Are you taking the piss? We're not debating the reputation of the seller here

 

[Mystericus]

So you have no argument

 

[Hypergamous]

So you have no argument

I'm done arguing, your hopeless, your mom might know nutrition but her statement is biased asl, your fear mongering, I've drank raw milk, I've eaten steak tartare and sushi, you fucking fool, its not always contaminated, get it from a reputable source like I displayed and see for yourself

 

[Mystericus]

I'm done arguing, your hopeless

(As he mistakes you & you're)

your mom might know nutrition but her statement is biased asl

What are you even talking about?

I've drank raw milk, I've eaten steak tartare and sushi, you fucking fool

Smoker logic JFL, you're trying to apply anecdotes at scale & it's retarded, like literally "Muh low IQ" behavior

its not always contaminated, get it from a reputable source like I displayed and see for yourself

There's an undeniable, inherent risk, which i proved time and time again - you've got no counters to this.

Smoking that @Hypergamous pack

 

[Hypergamous]

There's an undeniable, inherent risk, which i proved time and time again - you've got no counters to this.

its less risky then getting intoxicated, everything is exaggerated because your brainwashed into believing you'll get sick every time, you literally haven't questioned anything this entire time after I've presented the real evidence

 

[Mystericus]

its less risky then getting intoxicated

Yeah no shit an impairing drug's worse for you than milk with disease risk, and it's irreverent anyways; i don't drink, i assume you don't either, and the topic's not about alcohol, it's about raw-milk.

everything is exaggerated because your brainwashed into believing you'll get sick every time

Nope; never said it's a guarantee you'd get sick, it's an inherent, disproportionate risk - not a universal law

you literally haven't questioned anything this entire time after I've presented the real evidence

Lmao, what "real evidence"? A table with no source? Some youtube videos?

Yeah bro youtube's more factual than RCT's & peer-reviewed papers

 

[Mystericus]

Yeah no shit an impairing drug's worse for you than milk with disease risk, and it's irreverent anyways; i don't drink, i assume you don't either, and the topic's not about alcohol, it's about raw-milk.


Nope; never said it's a guarantee you'd get sick, it's an inherent, disproportionate risk - not a universal law


Lmao, what "real evidence"? A table with no source? Some youtube videos?

Yeah bro youtube's more factual than RCT's & peer-reviewed papers

@junebug this is the state of the forums user base rn

 

[Hypergamous]

Yeah no shit an impairing drug's worse for you than milk with disease risk, and it's irreverent anyways; i don't drink, i assume you don't either, and the topic's not about alcohol, it's about raw-milk.


Nope; never said it's a guarantee you'd get sick, it's an inherent, disproportionate risk - not a universal law


Lmao, what "real evidence"? A table with no source? Some youtube videos?

Yeah bro youtube's more factual than RCT's & peer-reviewed papers

it was a two studies recorded and posted on youtube, if you watched the videos you would be able to do your own search and find the articles for "pottengers cat study" and "weston A price's study on tooth decay" but you ignored it

 

[Hypergamous]

@junebug this is the state of the forums user base rn

n***a thinks @junebug is smarter than me

 

[Mystericus]

it was a two studies recorded and posted on youtube, if you watched the videos you would be able to do your own search and find the articles for "pottengers cat study" and "weston A price's study on tooth decay" but you ignored it

So a study done on cats, that's not applicable to humans, and a study from the 1930's.... You're beyond retarded LMAO

n***a thinks @junebug is smarter than me

Obviously, you can't grasp anything that's not from some youtube video

 

[Hypergamous]

So a study done on cats, that's not applicable to humans, and a study from the 1930's.... You're beyond retarded LMAO


Obviously, you can't grasp anything that's not from some youtube video

you've been making assumptions from the moment we started arguing, and you think just because its an old study its less reputable? are you kidding me, everything your saying is hold up your bs argument that it matters , it doesnt matter unless the animal is contaminated. idky im still going back and foward w u, youve never lived on a farm, you think I watch tiktok and make these random assumtions without asking a single question when the reason I got to this fucking conclusion was because I asked questions

 

[Mystericus]

and you think just because its an old study its less reputable?

Yes? Have you no idea how much testing standards have evolved since? These studies predate the era when lobotomies were common practice. There's a reason you'll find zero citation's predating the 80s in 99% of modern medical literature; because it's unverifiable & inaccurate. Women were prescribed meth to combat household boredom in the 50s, and you're over here linking bs from the 40s & 30s

it doesnt matter unless the animal is contaminated

*Buzz* r****d! No.... There's a million bacterial risk factors that'll affect the safety profile regardless of the animals health

youve never lived on a farm,

A famous prerequisite for inferring information from studies: living on a farm... Idk why we aren't appointing farm-hands to conduct these studies

you think I watch tiktok and make these random assumtions without asking a single question when the reason I got to this fucking conclusion was because I asked questions

I know now it's youtube, and why would i ask for your reasoning? You can't even read an articles abstract, god knows what reasoning you've built off studies (which you've watched through youtube) from the 30s/40s