Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Survival Prep (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=141)
- - raw milk (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=268548)

uranian | 05-27-2008 05:41 AM
raw milk i'm sure i've seen threads on this before, but neither the search function of the forum nor google produce any hits. what is raw milk? i was under the impression that it's just unpasteurised, unhomogonised, generally unbuggered around with cow (or any other animal) milk. fresh from the udders, no messin. but then i've been looking around here for a supplier of this, and came across comments that raw milk is in fact colostrum, i.e. the milk that a cow produces in the first few days after birth (same with humans) that contains lots of beneficial bacteria for the gut and more. in humans at least, this is a clear substance, rather unlike milk. so i am confused...is raw milk, as it's generally meant, just completely unprocessed milk, or is this bovine colostrum?

Tn...Andy | 05-27-2008 06:32 AM
Re: raw milk Raw milk is just what you thought it was. Colostrum is "first milk".....newborn calves need it, but I never heard of anyone drinking it.

Lt Dan | 05-27-2008 08:09 AM
Re: raw milk While I have drank fresh warm raw milk, I prefer it chilled, either cow or goat milk. But I too have never heard of anyone drinking new "first milk". I like goat milk better than cow milk to drink, because the cream doesn't separate out like cow milk does, it's naturally homogenized. To make goat milk butter you need a cream separator, an added cost if you go with goat milk over cow milk. Well, I guess no one makes their own butter these days, all that often.

Farmgal | 05-27-2008 08:26 AM
Re: raw milk www.realmilk.com has more information about raw milk and also listings by state of people selling it. Raw milk from grassfed cows is a very healthy food!

Squirrel Bait | 05-27-2008 08:45 AM
Re: raw milk Guys, you know we are probably not even supposed to be drinking milk, right? I mean, can you name any other species on the planet that drinks milk after they are weaned? Let alone another species milk. I drink it too, but sometimes I wonder if we should. s

Darkside | 05-27-2008 08:54 AM
Re: raw milk I've been exclusively drinking raw milk for several years now. Have not touched the pasteurized junk. When it is pasteurized beneficial enzymes and bacteria are destroyed, proteins altered, and nutrients cooked. In my opinion it is also much tastier, smells better, and makes me feel good when I drink it. Lactose intolerant people have no symptoms drinking raw milk (since the natural bacteria present in raw milk which handle the lactose are not annihilated)

aybesee123 | 05-27-2008 09:23 AM
Re: raw milk Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel Bait (Post 1120026) Guys, you know we are probably not even supposed to be drinking milk, right? I mean, can you name any other species on the planet that drinks milk after they are weaned? Let alone another species milk. I drink it too, but sometimes I wonder if we should. s
Other species don't have the opportunity . There is lots of things Humans do that other species of animals don't ....like chat on messageboards. I must admit when I ran across these two cartoons a few days ago it shook my personal milk drinking beliefs a bit however... http://images.craigslist.org/0101070...2d670050ca.jpg http://images.craigslist.org/0115030...eef000b572.jpg

Squirrel Bait | 05-27-2008 09:42 AM
Re: raw milk A friend of mine took one of those new heart scans. Afterward, they asked him to take it again. There were many more lab techs this time and it took much longer, making him a little nervous. So he finally asked if he was going to die. They were very apologetic and explained they had never seen anyone with such small amounts of buildup in his arteries/veins. They had to recalibrate the machine to get a good measurement. So then they wanted to know what his daily diet and excercise was. He hadn't exercised in years but while on trips to France(4 trips a month) he had gotten hooked on "unpastuerized" cheeses and the daily glass of red wine, eaten in the mid afternoon with some fruit. There seems to be some sort of connection between with the enzmes, wine and the fruit. I think they just like the wine haha!! So I agree that the Unpastuerized stuff is much better. We need those enzymes. (Kind of like kids who grow up working/playing in a barn have fewer allergies than kids who grow up in a sterile environment.) But here in the good ol' USA we've mad it illegal in most states and it's just hard to get. I think some Amish farmer recently got shut down in Ohio for selling the stuff. Go figure!!!! s

Seleukus Nikator | 05-27-2008 10:10 AM
Re: raw milk colostrum makes babies defectate out this tarlike poo called merconium that smells like plutonium milk is yummy, I know dogs and cats will lap it up if they have the chance. its nutritious. whether or not its natural is meaningless raw milk is cool and all until you get a foodborne illness -- Quote:
"Diseases which may be transmitted by micro-organisms in raw milk or raw milk products include salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis, brucellosis, yersiniosis, listeriosis, staphylococcal enterotoxin poisoning, streptococcal infections, tuberculosis and E. Coli 0157:H7 infection."
probably its not for me; but I support the right of people to freely drink and sell raw milk if properly branded as such. I have to confess though I will eat undercooked meats especially beef which I find most delicious

GOLD DUCK | 05-27-2008 10:10 AM
Re: raw milk Quote:
Originally Posted by Tn...Andy (Post 1119928) Raw milk is just what you thought it was. Colostrum is "first milk".....newborn calves need it, but I never heard of anyone drinking it.
QWAK,Andy,The FIRST MILK "Colostrum" is very valuable to help cancer paitents and IF you can get it from a raw milk dairy it goes for a much higher premium to there usual raw milk prices! the DUCK

NINEX19 | 05-27-2008 10:42 AM
Re: raw milk I was born, raised and worked on a dairy farm for 24 years. My family only drank raw milk. Not one of the nine children developed ANY alergies or lactose intolerance, nor did anyone EVER get sick from raw milk. Those are days gone by, but I miss them and wish that I could give my kids that type of unadalterated food.

uranian | 05-27-2008 12:50 PM
Re: raw milk thanks! i've found that i develop a minor rash if i drink milk, but not yogurt, cheese or any other milk product. so i'm wondering about trying raw milk. shall keep looking for a local supplier. i didn't know the colostrum was what produced that evil first merconium. interesting tidbit. last thought, i heard eustace mullins (author of the first book to really bring the phed to any attention at all) suggest that the addition of chlorine to water is what causes people to have heart attacks all over the place, rather than any type of fat (saturated vs. non-saturated). have never checked it out, i should add.

uranian | 05-27-2008 01:09 PM
Re: raw milk mercola.com on chlorine and water (turns out its true, of course): Poisoning By Chlorinated Water Written by Joseph G. Hattersley, May 1999 Federal regulations require chlorine treatment of the water supplied to urban/suburban America from surface sources such as lakes, reservoirs and rivers. That constitutes about 75 percent of water that Americans consume. (Water from underground sources generally is not chlorinated unless it is supplemented by surface water. My hometown, Lacey, Washington, and some surrounding communities that are supplied water by Lacey, are fortunate to be among that group; I'd like to see that continue.) Chlorination is inferior water treatment on at least two counts. Although it has greatly lowered infectious waterborne diseases in the U.S. and Canada, chlorination fails against a variety of water problems including parasites and can seriously harm people who use the water. Its cost is unnecessarily high. Andover, Massachusetts new ozone treatment costs $83 per million gallons of purified water, only two-thirds as much as the old treatment process. The town saves $64,000 annually in chemicals costs alone, and uses less electricity. Let's explore this. When chlorinated water is run through a hose or carried in a pail followed by milk as in a dairy, what happens? "Very tenacious, yellowish deposits chemically similar to arterial plaque" form; with unchlorinated water this doesn't happen. CBS' "Sixty Minutes" show July 11, 1992, displayed two laboratory rats, both of them eating standard rat chow and drinking chlorinated water. One rat had clear arteries. The other was also drinking pasteurized, homogenized milk. When the animals were sacrificed and cut open, the arteries of its milk-drinking companions were clogged. A scientist in a white coat winked at the camera and said, "He [the rat he was holding] is the only one doing research on that." The researcher didn't say why, but the powerful dairy and chemical lobbies come to mind. Dairy buckets and hoses, and rats' arteries resist the arterial-wall damage known as atherosclerosis. But what can chlorinated water and milk, particularly homogenized milk, do to the far more susceptible arteries of humans? The arteries of young chickens are about as susceptible to such damage as people's arteries. So as a first approximation, J.M. Price, MD gave cockerels (roosters less than a year old) only chlorinated water. They rapidly developed arterial plaques; and the stronger the concentration of chlorine, the faster and worse the damage. Other cockerels given unchlorinated water developed no such damage.2 The residents of the small town of Roseto, Pennsylvania, had no heart attacks despite a diet rich in saturated animal fats and milk -- until they moved away from Roseto's mountain spring water and drank chlorinated water. After that, consuming the same diet, they had heart attacks.2 The Roseto example is dramatic enough, but the needed detailed comparisons and follow-up are not likely to be done. What's Going on Here? Highly reactive chlorine is one of the industrial waste products profitably disposed of into us Americans like garbage cans, then on into the environment. Chlorine oxidizes lipid (fatty) contaminants in the water. It thus creates free radicals 2 (highly reactive sub-atomic particles lacking an electron) and oxysterols (formed when lipid molecules combine with oxygen molecules). We require moderate numbers of both free radicals and oxysterols. The immune system employs free radicals to kill cells that its cellular immune mechanism can't handle. A second mechanism using free radicals initiates programmed cell death known as apoptosis. And moderate quantities of oxysterols, like cholesterol itself, serve a protective function. But excess free radicals and excess oxysterols damage arteries and initiate cancer, among many other kinds of harm. How well does the incidence of heart attacks match the areas where, and times when water is/was chlorinated? Chlorination spread throughout America in the second and third decades of this century, about 20 years before the mushrooming of heart attacks. Light chlorination, we will recall, yielded slow growth of plaques in Price's cockerels; and so chlorination of people's drinking water at the usual low concentration would have been expected to take at least 10-20 years to produce clinical manifestations of atherosclerosis. The timing fits, and the Roseto example fits. A physician team led by William F. Enos autopsied three hundred GIs who had died in battle in the Korean War. These men, who had passed induction examination as healthy, averaged 22.1 years of age; the doctors wondered what they would find. To their shock and amazement, in seventy-seven percent of the 300 they found "gross evidence of arteriosclerosis in the coronary arteries." In several, one or more heart arteries were partly or completely occluded (blocked). Although Dr. Enos didn't try to explain his grisly discovery, he assumed arterial clogging had developed gradually. Seeming to support that assumption, almost 20 years later advanced arterial damage was discovered in ninety-six percent of nearly 200 consecutive babies who had died in their first month outside the womb. Two of those babies coronary arteries were blocked, causing infantile heart attacks. But did arterial damage in fact develop slowly? The water American soldiers had to drink in Korea was so heavily chlorinated that many could hardly tolerate it. In Vietnam too, autopsies of American solders found heart-artery damage. Again, water supplied to them had been heavily chlorinated.2 Did much of these soldiers' arterial damage develop, not gradually but quickly as in Dr. Price's cockerels? The truth-slow or rapid development of clogging - may never be known. Industrial chemist J.P. Bercz, PhD, showed in 1992 that chlorinated water alters and destroys unsaturated essential fatty acids (EFAs), the building blocks of people's brains and central nervous systems. The compound hypochlorite, created when chlorine mixes with water, generates excess free radicals; these oxidize EFAs, turning them rancid. And chlorine reacts with organic compounds in water to produce trihalomethanes (THMs) such as carcinogenic (cancer originating) chloroform and carbon tetrachloride. It is the combination of chlorine and organic materials already in the water that produces cancer-causing byproducts. The more organic matter in the water, the greater is the accumulation of THMs. In a study of more than 5,000 pregnant women in the Fontana, Walnut Creek and Santa Clara areas of California, researchers from the state health department found that women who drank more than five glasses a day of tap water that contained over 75 parts per billion of THMs had a 9.5 percent risk of spontaneous abortions, i.e. miscarriage. Women with lower exposure to the contaminants showed 5.7 percent risk. No comparison was given for women who ingested no THMs. Taking a warm shower or lounging in a hot tub filled with chlorinated water, one inhales chloroform. And worse, warm water opens the pores, causing the skin to act like a sponge, and so one will absorb and inhale more chlorine in a 10-minute shower than by drinking eight glasses of the same water. This irritates the eyes, the sinuses, throat, skin and lungs, makes the hair and scalp dry, worsening dandruff. It can weaken immunity. A window from the shower room open to the outdoors removes chloroform from the shower room air. But to prevent absorption of chlorine through the skin, a shower-head that removes chlorine from shower water is a must. Long-term risks of consuming chlorinated water include excessive free radical formation, which accelerates aging, increases vulnerability to genetic mutation and cancer development, causes difficulty metabolizing cholesterol, and promotes hardening of arteries. Excess free radicals created by chlorinated water also create dangerous toxins in the body. These have been directly linked to liver malfunction, weakening of the immune system and pre-arteriosclerotic changes in arteries (which, as we saw, struck Dr. Price's cockerels and may have happened to American soldiers in Korea and Vietnam). Excess free radicals have been linked also to alterations of cellular DNA, the stuff of inheritance. Chlorine also destroys antioxidant vitamin E, which is needed to counteract excess oxysterols/free radicals for cardiac and anti-cancer protection. Other Harm from Chlorination A study in the late 1970s found that chlorinated water appears to increase the risk of gastrointestinal cancer over a person's lifetime by 50 to 100 percent. This study analyzed thousands of cancer deaths in North Carolina, Illinois, Wisconsin and Louisiana. Risk of such cancers results from use of water containing chlorine at or below the E.P.A. (Environmental Protection Agency) standard and "is going to make the E.P.A. standard look ridiculous," stated Dr. Robert Harris, lead scientist in the study. Later, a meta-analysis found chlorinated water is associated each year in America with about 4,200 cases of bladder cancer and 6,500 cases of rectal cancer. Chlorine is estimated to account for 9 percent of bladder cancer cases and 18% of rectal cancers. Those cancers develop because the bladder and rectum store waste products for periods of time. (Keeping the bowels moving regularly will minimize such risk.) Chlorinated water is also associated with higher total risk of combined cancers. Chlorine in treated water can cause allergic symptoms ranging from skin rash to intestinal symptoms to arthritis, headaches, and on and on. Why does chlorine in water cause these problems? It destroys protective acidophilus, which nourishes and cooperates with the immunity-strengthening "friendly" organisms lining the colon. And, as mentioned earlier, chlorine combines with organic impurities in the water to make trihalomethanes (THMs), or chloramines. The more organic matter, the more THMs; and like excess oxysterols they are carcinogens. Recent research has found a new hazard in chlorinated water: a byproduct called MX. A research team from the National Public Health Institute in Finland discovered that, by causing genetic mutations, MX initiates cancer in laboratory animals. And DCA (dichloro acedic acid) in chlorinated water alters cholesterol metabolism, changing HDL ("good") to LDL ("bad") cholesterol -- and causes liver cancer in laboratory animals. Is there a better substitute for chlorine in water treatment: Yes. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) destroys infectious organisms and impurities in water 4,000 times better than chlorine. Ozone (O3) treatment, mentioned on earlier, is equally effective. Eleven hundred cities, worldwide, treat their drinking water with ozone; many have done so since as early as 1901. (Los Angeles treats its drinking water with H2O2, then adds chlorine. Some chlorine may be added after ozonation, to prevent re-infestation; only about one-third as much is needed.) To generate ozone, dry air or oxygen is passed through a high-voltage electrical field. Ozone drinking-water treatment in Andover, Massachusetts successfully controlled the effects of algae blooms and eliminated water quality problems. Potential THM formation was reduced by an average of 75 percent. But H2O2 and O3 are relatively cheap; moreover, the only byproducts are pure oxygen and hydrogen, so no one can make a big immediate profit on them. (Hydrogen is a potential major energy source for electricity generation and for zero-emission vehicles, and so it could be important in future years.) France and Germany, wiser and less controlled by the chemical industry, chlorinate water only in emergencies. The chemical companies pulled off a huge coup when they bamboozled America and Canada into chlorination. They make big profits disposing of excess chlorine into our drinking water; otherwise, they would have to pay to destroy it. So now we know why American water isn't treated with safe, cheaper, more effective ozone. And now we know why Dr. Price's revealing studies with cockerels were never followed up. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) tests have shown that "in the water we drink, over 2,100 organic and inorganic chemicals [including pesticides, heavy metals, radon, radioactive particles] and parasitic organisms including cryptosporidium have been identified; 156 of them are pure carcinogens. (In 1993, cryptosporidium killed more than 100 and infected over 400,000.) Of those, 26 are tumor promoting [they can make an existing tumor grow]. Exposure to cryptosporidium in people with lowered gastrointestinal immune function could lead to chronic GI infection. Other examples include recurring cases of Legionnaire's disease, a pneumonia caused by Legionella pneumophila, which may lurk in hot water supplies. A public notice recently issued in Washington, D.C. warned that a high level of bacteria in the [chlorinated, fluoridated city system] water made it unsafe for dialysis patients, AIDS patients, organ transplant patients, the elderly and infants. Water contamination is the worst in small communities that can't afford proper treatment; the EPA has not released this information. And hearings before the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight discussed Pfiesteria outbreaks among people drinking chlorinated water. The organism, which kills fish, sickens some people; they get sick from drinking the water, not from eating infected seafood. The EPA's Robert Perciasepe said, in written testimony, that "Any new public health policy on this issue needs to consider reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in our waters." A bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would require managers of municipal water systems to tell customers what contaminants have been found in local drinking water. But with present crude test methods, that would offer little help. Sherry Rogers, MD, pioneer in and authority on environmental medicine (EM), raises the number of chemicals in drinking water to 5,000. And 85 percent of American aquifers supplying wells below 8,000 feet altitude are contaminated with heavy metals; a recent federal report says the water you drink may have been recycled from sewage waste back to drinking water five times. As the late Kevin Treacy, MD of Australia said, "If municipal water were introduced now, it would not be allowed." The EPA called 129 of the contaminants found in water supplies "dangerous" singly, let alone in combination. Pesticides and other toxic wastes run off farmlands and pastures or are dumped by factories, pollute rivers and seep into underground aquifers. Aptly called "biocides" by Russell Jaffe, MD, PhD, pesticides are designed to end life; few have been shown to be safe. The EPA depends on producers of pesticides to test their safety: the wolf guards the hen house. It should be no surprise that the tests take a long time, and many have been fraudulent. Further, one poison is tested at a time; synergistic effects of combinations, potentially far worse, are ignored. Besides, many of the so-called "inert" substances in pesticide combinations are more toxic than the "active;" one of the "inerts" is DDT, prohibited for American farm use since 1973. Are these contaminants dangerous in such minute quantities? Yes! In a laboratory, healthy living cells weakened, malfunctioned and some died within seconds or minutes when exposed to toxins commonly detected in American drinking water such as mercury, nickel, cadmium and lead at the extremely low concentration of only one part per billion (ppb). Isn't all that bad enough without the deliberate addition of the further toxicity of chlorine? Protection of water: Government laboratories test only for bacterial content and a few of the major inorganic toxins such as lead and arsenic. So, to get a complete water test one must consult a private laboratory. Consumer Reports, in October 1999, rated the simpler Culligan filter, which easily attaches to a kitchen faucet, very high; and it is relatively inexpensive (about $14 at Walgreens).

Conk | 05-28-2008 09:29 AM
Re: raw milk Quote:
Originally Posted by Seleukus Nikator (Post 1120151) colostrum makes babies defectate out this tarlike poo called merconium that smells like plutonium milk is yummy, I know dogs and cats will lap it up if they have the chance. its nutritious. whether or not its natural is meaningless raw milk is cool and all until you get a foodborne illness -- probably its not for me; but I support the right of people to freely drink and sell raw milk if properly branded as such.
Sir, you are totally out of your element here. It makes a HUGE difference whether it's natural or not. As one of the other gentlemen said, pastuerization and homogenization ruin the milk and turn it into a DANGEROUS "food". colostrum is for sale and is quite nutritious. Any kind of milk contains the hormone IGF-1 and it is identical to human growth hormone. Humans stop producing IGF-1 at puberty, for good reason. Consumption of milk should be limited because of this. IGF-1 fuels cancers!

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:08 AM. |

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM