Dairy industry unites to push milk propaganda

Jan Drew wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Wrong.

FAIR USE
The NewsTarget Network publishes excerpts and summaries from copyrighted
works under Fair Use, which allows the use of copyrighted materials for
purposes of commentary and criticism for the public interest. NewsTarget
transforms summaries of the original copyrighted work into a new format and
adds new information and value in the form of commentary or criticism.

Fair use is quite irrelevant.
The material he deleted is still copyrighted (he's right and you knew
that,
and thus were lying, shrew).

"Max C." wrote in message
ps.com...

Jeff wrote:
"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeff wrote:
"Max C." wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeff wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Dairy does have some good and bad qualities, like any food. It is a
good
source of protein and calcium, for example. It is also a source of
saturated
fats.

The calcium in pasteurized milk is much less absorbable than in raw
milk becuase the enzyme phospatase has been neautralized.
Phosphatase
is required for optimum calcium utilization.

http://www.westonaprice.org/transition/dairy.html
"Complete destruction of phosphatase is one method of testing to see
if
milk has been adequately pasteurized. Phosphatase is essential for
the
absorption of calcium."

Peer-reviewed evidence, please.

Are you asking for peer reviewed evidence that phosphatase is
neutralized in pasteurization? You can find that anywhere on the web.
Are you asking for evidence that phosphatase is required for calcium
absorption? Perhaps you should read a bio book and focus on pancreatic
enzymes.

Pancreatic enzymes are made by the person drinking the milk, not the cow.
Pasteurization would not affect the pancreatic enzymes.

And those who lack the ability to produce the pancreatic enzyme
phosphatase in proper quantities will lack the ability to assimilate
calcium. It's the same scenario and those who can not produce lactase
and so can not assimilate the milk sugar lactose.

That is making three assumptions:

1) There are people who make the other pancreatic enzymes, but not
phosphatase. People who lack pancreatic enzymes have major problems with
malabsorbtion, like not being able to gain weight and digestive system
problems.

2) The phosphatase in the milk is actually active and in sufficentg
quantities in the digestive system of the person who is drinking the milk.
Acid (like the acid in the stomach) is pretty good at inactivating enzymes.
And the proteases, especially in the small intestine, are good at chewing up
enzymes. The enzyme is actually called alkaline phosphatase, indicating that
it would be inactive until it gets into the alkaline environment of the
small intestine, if it survives that far through the digestive tract.

3) The phosphatase actually makes a difference in the amount of calcium that
is absorbed by humans.

None of the three assumptions have been adequately supported.


I was asking for peer-reviewed evidence that calcium absorbtion is less
after pasteurization.

I have not found any. Someone has to PAY for scientific studies, and
there are no multinational grass fed raw milk companies willing to fork
over the money. I'll do some digging and see what I can come up with.

If you're not keen on reading an entire book, I found this little
description of phosphatase for you:

PHOSPHATASE:

A key enzyme in accessing two of milk's important minerals, phosphorus
and calcium, phosphatase hydrolyses (breaks down with water) complex
compounds in milk (called phosphate esters) to release phosphorus ions.
Optimal calcium absorption is dependent on proper ratios of phosphorus
and magnesium.

Phosphatase is completely destroyed at the lowest typical pasteurizing
temperatures (which are also the highest needed to kill pathogenic
bacteria). Food processors test for the total absence of phosphatase to
determine if pasteurization was successful. Presumably, its absence
also makes getting phosphorus and calcium out of the milk more
difficult for our bodies.

Presumably. Wow, that shows that this was well-iuvestigated.


My favorite line is saying that milk is formulated for calves. It
is
not
like oranges, apples, wheat or anything else was formulated as a
healthy
food for humans. Drinking milk is no more or less natural than
eating
these
foods.

Agreed. Under that logic, apples are strictly designed to make baby
apple trees.

The bottom line is that it is up to consumers to learn about the
benefits
and drawbacks of any food.

I'll agree, with stipulations. If all data on all food were clear
cut,
I would agree 100%, however, there are companies and individuals who
have a conflict of interest when it comes to providing such data.
The
discussion I've been in regarding aspartame is a perfect example.
NutraSweet would have one believe there is no data to support
negative
health implications associated with its product. Obviously that's
completely false, as I have shown evidence to the contrary. What
consumers *NEED* are real facts from unbiased sources. It is sad
that
such is often not the case in this world.

Compared to the risks of eating Big Macs, Whoppers, KFC, and
Freedom
Fries
(known as French Fries before the Iraq War), milk is a relatively
healthy
food, especially low-fat milk.

Completely disagree. Low fat milk usually has powdered milk added
back
to it to thicken it up. That powdered milk contains oxidized
cholesterol and rancid fats, both produced by the powdering process
which usually involves high heat and or pressure. The process of
homogenization also renders the fat more suseptible to
rancidification,
since it breaks apart the fat globules and unnaturally exposes them
to
more oxygen. It's those types of cholesterol and fat that causes
heart
disease, not the natural, unadulterated fats found in raw milk from
grass fed animals.

Whole fat raw milk from grass fed cows is full of fat soluble
vitamins
as well as nutrients not found in milk from grain fed cows, like the
Wulzen anti-stiffness factor and Dr. Price's Activator X.

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...minprimer.html
"Activator X or the Price Factor: Discovered by Weston Price, this
fat-soluble nutrient is a potent catalyst to mineral absorption. It
is
found in certain fatty parts of animals that feed on young green
growing plants or microorganisms, such as organ meats, fish and
shellfish, fish eggs and butter from cows eating rapidly growing
green
grass of spring and fall pasturage. Largely absent today, the Price
Factor was present in all traditional diets."

Peer-reviewed evidence, please.

Jeff

HA! You're funny. Do you want peer reviewed evidence that powdered
milk is added back your precious low fat milk? You won't find any
because science is not required to prove it. Or are you asking for
peer reviewed evidence that oxidized cholesterol and rancid fats cause
heart disease? I should hope that is not the case, since it's hardly
an arguable point of discussion.

Even *if* I were completely wrong about raw milk, at best it would only
mean that milk, in general, should not be considered a beneficial food.
So, you'd better get busy finding that peer reviewed evidence that
rancid fat and oxydized cholesterol won't cause disease. You started
the claim, so you go first.

Max.

No, peer-reviewed evidenced that drinking low-fat milk is as unhealthy as
you claim.

Oh, is THAT all? Jeez, why didn't you say so? Since it is not in
question that powdered milk is added to low fat milk, and since we know
that the heating process oxidizes the cholesterol therein, all you
really need to know is what the addition of that oxidized cholesterol
will do to you:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Actually, that's incorrect. It is non-fat milk solids that are usually added
to milk, especially low-fat milk. There still are some fats in the non-fat
milk solids, but the amount of fat is relatively small. You haven't
demonstrated that there is enough oxidized fat in non-fat or low-fat milk to
be of concern.

BUUUUT of course you're going to say "Hey, that's not milk." Well, if
I must:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
"Evidence is related supporting the hypothesis that heat-denatured
bovine immunoglobulin (BGG) may be a major risk factor in the
pathogenesis of atherosclerosis; it is shown that not only does the
consumption of denatured BGG correlate at all three major
epidemiological levels--historical, international and social class--but
this highly reactive and invasive molecule also seems to possess the
biological and/or pathological properties from which could evolve the
main pathological changes found not only in atherosclerosis but also in
some of its complications."

Heat-denatured....hmmmm kinda sounds like pasteurization to me.

Except virtually all of the protein is broken down into amino acids in the
digestive tract before absorbtion. "Sounds like" is not the same thing as
"is."


You also need to watch out what kind of cow you get your milk from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12957678

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
Maybe I'm wrong, but couldn't an increase in HMB CoA reductase activity
be a bad thing?

Yet there were no changes in the hepatic lipids or cholesterol.

I'd also like to point out that I found many reports on pubmed on the
heart benefits on dairy products, but most of them were tied to yogurt
or did not mention what type of milk product was in question. Nor did
those studies mention the addition of powdered milk to the milk in
question.

Which means that you're offering basically unsupported hypotheses.

Jeff

Max.

"just stupid wrote:

Jan Drew wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Wrong.

FAIR USE
The NewsTarget Network publishes excerpts and summaries from copyrighted
works under Fair Use, which allows the use of copyrighted materials for
purposes of commentary and criticism for the public interest. NewsTarget
transforms summaries of the original copyrighted work into a new format
and
adds new information and value in the form of commentary or criticism.

He's not wrong, you are.

NO. I wrote to Mike Adams, I suggest you do the same thing.

You posted copyrighted material, he deleted it
and courteously noted it.

You knew he was right when yoou contradicted him.
you lied, again, shrew.

No, I did not lie, neither am I a shrew.

Now what were you saying about attacking?

*That's right... when you can't debate the issue, just attack the
messenger. Works every time, huh. :-/ "*

Now--back to the subject...........

http://www.newstarget.com/z021054.html


NewsTarget.com printable article
Originally published November 13 2006
Dairy industry unites to push milk propaganda
(NewsTarget) The dairy industry recently formed a Global Dairy Forum to help
coordinate dairy research and promote the image of milk products in light of
a growing anti-dairy movement that has targeted the industry for its
products' negative health effects.
At the recent International Dairy Federation summit, the Global Dairy Forum
was charged with boosting the image of milk since sales have slowed
following anti-dairy campaigns that linked the drink to diseases and
disorders.


The Forum includes dairy firms such as Arla Foods, Campina, Fonterra and
Dairy Farmers of America, and is headed by Tesco, the UK's largest
supermarket chain. Tesco has agreed to get behind a campaign to help educate
British consumers about the healthy benefits of drinking milk.


The Global Dairy Forum will launch campaigns to increase the presence of
milk and dairy products in schools, as well as encourage women drink more
milk to boost their consumption of calcium.


According to Tesco senior dairy buyer Alain Guilpain, more than 90 percent
of consumers are unaware of the fat content of milk, and half of those
surveyed in a recent study by the Milk Development Council overestimated the
fat content by more than six times.


"By getting the right information out there, we can dispel these
misconceptions and alert a new generation of drinkers to milk's unique
health properties," Guilpain said.


However, milk opponents claim the dairy industry's new forum will push
misleading milk information on the public, possibly exacerbating health
problems for many consumers.


According to consumer advocate Mike Adams, milk consumption is linked with
constipation, sinusitis, digestive disorders and heart disease.


"The dairy industry is working hard to convince humans that a beverage that
is nutritionally formulated for baby cows should be routinely consumed by
adult human beings," Adams said. "This requires a lot of marketing dollars
and a continued campaign of propaganda."


The dairy industry says milk is a key dietary source of calcium, which can
help prevent brittle bones. A survey last year revealed that 70 to 80
percent of British children 11 to 18 years old consumed less than their RDA
of calcium.

"Max C." wrote in message
ps.com...



No, peer-reviewed evidenced that drinking low-fat milk is as unhealthy as
you claim.

"Peer" can mean someone who drinks milk or someone who doesn't drink milk.
Definition of "peer reviewed": "Reviewed by someone who I agree with and
thus is my egalitarian equal."
Most truth is obtained by dis-interested teams of researchers who have
nothing to gain or lose with the results (the opposite of "peer")

BTW, "low fat" needs defining. It is extremely difficult to find milk, even
directly form a farm, where cream has not been centrifically separated and
then some added back. Even without centrifigal separation, much of the
cream is skimmed off. Depending on the type of cattle, the cream content is
from 12% to 60% in real whole milk.


Oh, is THAT all? Jeez, why didn't you say so? Since it is not in
question that powdered milk is added to low fat milk, and since we know
that the heating process oxidizes the cholesterol therein, all you
really need to know is what the addition of that oxidized cholesterol
will do to you:

Of course all recent studies have not been able to show that ingested
cholesterol becomes or remains cholesterol when ingested. Cholesterol build
up in arteries is a result of other deficiencies.

There is no realistic evidence that milk or milk byproducts can raise
cholesterol. A slight bit of evidence exists that indicates "substituting"
milk for other foods (not common) or ingesting milk with sugar added can
effect cholesterol and circulation. (i.e. 50% of calories in a meal from
ice cream)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


Summation quote from above rabbit test.
"We have suggested that"

Jeff wrote:
"Max C." wrote in message
ps.com...

And those who lack the ability to produce the pancreatic enzyme
phosphatase in proper quantities will lack the ability to assimilate
calcium. It's the same scenario and those who can not produce lactase
and so can not assimilate the milk sugar lactose.

That is making three assumptions:

1) There are people who make the other pancreatic enzymes, but not
phosphatase. People who lack pancreatic enzymes have major problems with
malabsorbtion, like not being able to gain weight and digestive system
problems.

Building an enzyme is not magic. Each enzyme requires very specific
building blocks in order to be built. It is entirely possible (as
represented by those who don't produce enough lactase, yet produce
plenty of other digestive enzymes) that the body has all the building
blocks it need to build one type enzyme and not another. Your all or
nothing view is unrealistic.

2) The phosphatase in the milk is actually active and in sufficentg
quantities in the digestive system of the person who is drinking the milk.
Acid (like the acid in the stomach) is pretty good at inactivating enzymes.

Inactivating, yes, but Dr. Edward Howell did tons of research on this
subject and showed that A: a great deal of food enzymes passed in the
active form into the small intesting and B: many of those that were
inactivated were done so by being in an improper pH for them to be
active. Once they were back in a proper pH environment, they became
active again.

And the proteases, especially in the small intestine, are good at chewing up
enzymes.

That's a very good point, and VITAL to this discussion. You see,
phosphatase also aids in calcium transport into bone. You'll find
plenty of evidence of that on pubmed. Since very specific building
blocks are required for the body to build phosphatse enzymes, what
better source of the building blocks than a broken down phosphatase
enzyme? Pasteurization does not neutralize phosphatase. It destroys
it. Dr. Royal Lee did extensive research on the problem with cooking
protein in the presence of sugar. He included several points of his
research in many of his lectures in the 1940s and 50s.

The enzyme is actually called alkaline phosphatase, indicating that
it would be inactive until it gets into the alkaline environment of the
small intestine, if it survives that far through the digestive tract.

Again, Dr. Howell showed clear evidence that a high percentage of food
enzymes remain in tact into the small intestine.

3) The phosphatase actually makes a difference in the amount of calcium that
is absorbed by humans.

I'm still working on this. The problem is that most of the data on
this point is from the VERY early 1900's when pasteurization was taking
hold. Such data is not available online... and there's absolutely NO
reason for any team of scientists to research it right now. Who would
pay them? The government does not agree with the raw milk concept and
there are no large corporations trying to make a name for themselves
(yet.) Believe me, I want to give you this information as much as you
want to read it.

None of the three assumptions have been adequately supported.

I was asking for peer-reviewed evidence that calcium absorbtion is less
after pasteurization.

I have not found any. Someone has to PAY for scientific studies, and
there are no multinational grass fed raw milk companies willing to fork
over the money. I'll do some digging and see what I can come up with.

If you're not keen on reading an entire book, I found this little
description of phosphatase for you:

PHOSPHATASE:

A key enzyme in accessing two of milk's important minerals, phosphorus
and calcium, phosphatase hydrolyses (breaks down with water) complex
compounds in milk (called phosphate esters) to release phosphorus ions.
Optimal calcium absorption is dependent on proper ratios of phosphorus
and magnesium.

Phosphatase is completely destroyed at the lowest typical pasteurizing
temperatures (which are also the highest needed to kill pathogenic
bacteria). Food processors test for the total absence of phosphatase to
determine if pasteurization was successful. Presumably, its absence
also makes getting phosphorus and calcium out of the milk more
difficult for our bodies.

Presumably. Wow, that shows that this was well-iuvestigated.


My favorite line is saying that milk is formulated for calves. It
is
not
like oranges, apples, wheat or anything else was formulated as a
healthy
food for humans. Drinking milk is no more or less natural than
eating
these
foods.

Agreed. Under that logic, apples are strictly designed to make baby
apple trees.

The bottom line is that it is up to consumers to learn about the
benefits
and drawbacks of any food.

I'll agree, with stipulations. If all data on all food were clear
cut,
I would agree 100%, however, there are companies and individuals who
have a conflict of interest when it comes to providing such data.
The
discussion I've been in regarding aspartame is a perfect example.
NutraSweet would have one believe there is no data to support
negative
health implications associated with its product. Obviously that's
completely false, as I have shown evidence to the contrary. What
consumers *NEED* are real facts from unbiased sources. It is sad
that
such is often not the case in this world.

Compared to the risks of eating Big Macs, Whoppers, KFC, and
Freedom
Fries
(known as French Fries before the Iraq War), milk is a relatively
healthy
food, especially low-fat milk.

Completely disagree. Low fat milk usually has powdered milk added
back
to it to thicken it up. That powdered milk contains oxidized
cholesterol and rancid fats, both produced by the powdering process
which usually involves high heat and or pressure. The process of
homogenization also renders the fat more suseptible to
rancidification,
since it breaks apart the fat globules and unnaturally exposes them
to
more oxygen. It's those types of cholesterol and fat that causes
heart
disease, not the natural, unadulterated fats found in raw milk from
grass fed animals.

Whole fat raw milk from grass fed cows is full of fat soluble
vitamins
as well as nutrients not found in milk from grain fed cows, like the
Wulzen anti-stiffness factor and Dr. Price's Activator X.

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...minprimer.html
"Activator X or the Price Factor: Discovered by Weston Price, this
fat-soluble nutrient is a potent catalyst to mineral absorption. It
is
found in certain fatty parts of animals that feed on young green
growing plants or microorganisms, such as organ meats, fish and
shellfish, fish eggs and butter from cows eating rapidly growing
green
grass of spring and fall pasturage. Largely absent today, the Price
Factor was present in all traditional diets."

Peer-reviewed evidence, please.

Jeff

HA! You're funny. Do you want peer reviewed evidence that powdered
milk is added back your precious low fat milk? You won't find any
because science is not required to prove it. Or are you asking for
peer reviewed evidence that oxidized cholesterol and rancid fats cause
heart disease? I should hope that is not the case, since it's hardly
an arguable point of discussion.

Even *if* I were completely wrong about raw milk, at best it would only
mean that milk, in general, should not be considered a beneficial food.
So, you'd better get busy finding that peer reviewed evidence that
rancid fat and oxydized cholesterol won't cause disease. You started
the claim, so you go first.

Max.

No, peer-reviewed evidenced that drinking low-fat milk is as unhealthy as
you claim.

Oh, is THAT all? Jeez, why didn't you say so? Since it is not in
question that powdered milk is added to low fat milk, and since we know
that the heating process oxidizes the cholesterol therein, all you
really need to know is what the addition of that oxidized cholesterol
will do to you:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Actually, that's incorrect. It is non-fat milk solids that are usually added
to milk, especially low-fat milk. There still are some fats in the non-fat
milk solids, but the amount of fat is relatively small. You haven't
demonstrated that there is enough oxidized fat in non-fat or low-fat milk to
be of concern.

You forgot about the oxidized cholesterol.

BUUUUT of course you're going to say "Hey, that's not milk." Well, if
I must:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
"Evidence is related supporting the hypothesis that heat-denatured
bovine immunoglobulin (BGG) may be a major risk factor in the
pathogenesis of atherosclerosis; it is shown that not only does the
consumption of denatured BGG correlate at all three major
epidemiological levels--historical, international and social class--but
this highly reactive and invasive molecule also seems to possess the
biological and/or pathological properties from which could evolve the
main pathological changes found not only in atherosclerosis but also in
some of its complications."

Heat-denatured....hmmmm kinda sounds like pasteurization to me.

Except virtually all of the protein is broken down into amino acids in the
digestive tract before absorbtion. "Sounds like" is not the same thing as
"is."

Not necessarily. If you can find a way to get a copy of some of Dr.
Royal Lee's lectures on the problem of cooking proteins in the presence
of sugars you'd change your mind. Not to mention, there are plenty of
pages online where you can read up on Dr. Francis Pottenger's studies
on the effects of raw and pasteurized foods on cats.

You also need to watch out what kind of cow you get your milk from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12957678

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
Maybe I'm wrong, but couldn't an increase in HMB CoA reductase activity
be a bad thing?

Yet there were no changes in the hepatic lipids or cholesterol.

I'd also like to point out that I found many reports on pubmed on the
heart benefits on dairy products, but most of them were tied to yogurt
or did not mention what type of milk product was in question. Nor did
those studies mention the addition of powdered milk to the milk in
question.

Which means that you're offering basically unsupported hypotheses.

Not even close. I'm making a distinction between the types of dairy
products studied. Like most people, you seem to want to lump all dairy
products into one. That's like saying that since a Yugo and a Lotus
both have 4 wheels, seats and a steering wheel that they're exactly the
same. Obviously they are not. The same is true with many foods. Why
do you think we've seen so many conflicting reports on the benefits of
eggs over the decades? You can take a battery eggs from hens that have
been fed "who knows what" and compare its nutritional value to an egg
from a hen that roam free on green grass, scavenging for worms and
insects, and you'll find that there are HUGE nutritional differences.

That's why you'll see me qualifiy raw milk with the words "grass fed"
practically every time I mention raw milk. I have learned to make a
distinction.

I'll get back to you with more information on the phosphatase / calcium
thing ASAP. I'm probably going to have to go offline to find the info.

Max.

Max C. wrote:
Jeff wrote:
"Max C." wrote in message
ps.com...

And those who lack the ability to produce the pancreatic enzyme
phosphatase in proper quantities will lack the ability to assimilate
calcium. It's the same scenario and those who can not produce lactase
and so can not assimilate the milk sugar lactose.

That is making three assumptions:

1) There are people who make the other pancreatic enzymes, but not
phosphatase. People who lack pancreatic enzymes have major problems with
malabsorbtion, like not being able to gain weight and digestive system
problems.

Building an enzyme is not magic. Each enzyme requires very specific
building blocks in order to be built. It is entirely possible (as
represented by those who don't produce enough lactase, yet produce
plenty of other digestive enzymes) that the body has all the building
blocks it need to build one type enzyme and not another. Your all or
nothing view is unrealistic.

2) The phosphatase in the milk is actually active and in sufficentg
quantities in the digestive system of the person who is drinking the milk.
Acid (like the acid in the stomach) is pretty good at inactivating enzymes.

Inactivating, yes, but Dr. Edward Howell did tons of research on this
subject and showed that A: a great deal of food enzymes passed in the
active form into the small intesting and B: many of those that were
inactivated were done so by being in an improper pH for them to be
active. Once they were back in a proper pH environment, they became
active again.

And the proteases, especially in the small intestine, are good at chewing up
enzymes.

That's a very good point, and VITAL to this discussion. You see,
phosphatase also aids in calcium transport into bone. You'll find
plenty of evidence of that on pubmed. Since very specific building
blocks are required for the body to build phosphatse enzymes, what
better source of the building blocks than a broken down phosphatase
enzyme? Pasteurization does not neutralize phosphatase. It destroys
it. Dr. Royal Lee did extensive research on the problem with cooking
protein in the presence of sugar. He included several points of his
research in many of his lectures in the 1940s and 50s.

The enzyme is actually called alkaline phosphatase, indicating that
it would be inactive until it gets into the alkaline environment of the
small intestine, if it survives that far through the digestive tract.

Again, Dr. Howell showed clear evidence that a high percentage of food
enzymes remain in tact into the small intestine.

3) The phosphatase actually makes a difference in the amount of calcium that
is absorbed by humans.

I'm still working on this. The problem is that most of the data on
this point is from the VERY early 1900's when pasteurization was taking
hold. Such data is not available online... and there's absolutely NO
reason for any team of scientists to research it right now. Who would
pay them? The government does not agree with the raw milk concept and
there are no large corporations trying to make a name for themselves
(yet.) Believe me, I want to give you this information as much as you
want to read it.

None of the three assumptions have been adequately supported.

I was asking for peer-reviewed evidence that calcium absorbtion is less
after pasteurization.

I have not found any. Someone has to PAY for scientific studies, and
there are no multinational grass fed raw milk companies willing to fork
over the money. I'll do some digging and see what I can come up with.

If you're not keen on reading an entire book, I found this little
description of phosphatase for you:

PHOSPHATASE:

A key enzyme in accessing two of milk's important minerals, phosphorus
and calcium, phosphatase hydrolyses (breaks down with water) complex
compounds in milk (called phosphate esters) to release phosphorus ions.
Optimal calcium absorption is dependent on proper ratios of phosphorus
and magnesium.

Phosphatase is completely destroyed at the lowest typical pasteurizing
temperatures (which are also the highest needed to kill pathogenic
bacteria). Food processors test for the total absence of phosphatase to
determine if pasteurization was successful. Presumably, its absence
also makes getting phosphorus and calcium out of the milk more
difficult for our bodies.

Presumably. Wow, that shows that this was well-iuvestigated.


My favorite line is saying that milk is formulated for calves. It
is
not
like oranges, apples, wheat or anything else was formulated as a
healthy
food for humans. Drinking milk is no more or less natural than
eating
these
foods.

Agreed. Under that logic, apples are strictly designed to make baby
apple trees.

The bottom line is that it is up to consumers to learn about the
benefits
and drawbacks of any food.

I'll agree, with stipulations. If all data on all food were clear
cut,
I would agree 100%, however, there are companies and individuals who
have a conflict of interest when it comes to providing such data.
The
discussion I've been in regarding aspartame is a perfect example.
NutraSweet would have one believe there is no data to support
negative
health implications associated with its product. Obviously that's
completely false, as I have shown evidence to the contrary. What
consumers *NEED* are real facts from unbiased sources. It is sad
that
such is often not the case in this world.

Compared to the risks of eating Big Macs, Whoppers, KFC, and
Freedom
Fries
(known as French Fries before the Iraq War), milk is a relatively
healthy
food, especially low-fat milk.

Completely disagree. Low fat milk usually has powdered milk added
back
to it to thicken it up. That powdered milk contains oxidized
cholesterol and rancid fats, both produced by the powdering process
which usually involves high heat and or pressure. The process of
homogenization also renders the fat more suseptible to
rancidification,
since it breaks apart the fat globules and unnaturally exposes them
to
more oxygen. It's those types of cholesterol and fat that causes
heart
disease, not the natural, unadulterated fats found in raw milk from
grass fed animals.

Whole fat raw milk from grass fed cows is full of fat soluble
vitamins
as well as nutrients not found in milk from grain fed cows, like the
Wulzen anti-stiffness factor and Dr. Price's Activator X.

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...minprimer.html
"Activator X or the Price Factor: Discovered by Weston Price, this
fat-soluble nutrient is a potent catalyst to mineral absorption.. It
is
found in certain fatty parts of animals that feed on young green
growing plants or microorganisms, such as organ meats, fish and
shellfish, fish eggs and butter from cows eating rapidly growing
green
grass of spring and fall pasturage. Largely absent today, the Price
Factor was present in all traditional diets."

Peer-reviewed evidence, please.

Jeff

HA! You're funny. Do you want peer reviewed evidence that powdered
milk is added back your precious low fat milk? You won't find any
because science is not required to prove it. Or are you asking for
peer reviewed evidence that oxidized cholesterol and rancid fats cause
heart disease? I should hope that is not the case, since it's hardly
an arguable point of discussion.

Even *if* I were completely wrong about raw milk, at best it would only
mean that milk, in general, should not be considered a beneficial food.
So, you'd better get busy finding that peer reviewed evidence that
rancid fat and oxydized cholesterol won't cause disease. You started
the claim, so you go first.

Max.

No, peer-reviewed evidenced that drinking low-fat milk is as unhealthy as
you claim.

Oh, is THAT all? Jeez, why didn't you say so? Since it is not in
question that powdered milk is added to low fat milk, and since we know
that the heating process oxidizes the cholesterol therein, all you
really need to know is what the addition of that oxidized cholesterol
will do to you:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Actually, that's incorrect. It is non-fat milk solids that are usually added
to milk, especially low-fat milk. There still are some fats in the non-fat
milk solids, but the amount of fat is relatively small. You haven't
demonstrated that there is enough oxidized fat in non-fat or low-fat milk to
be of concern.

You forgot about the oxidized cholesterol.

BUUUUT of course you're going to say "Hey, that's not milk." Well, if
I must:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
"Evidence is related supporting the hypothesis that heat-denatured
bovine immunoglobulin (BGG) may be a major risk factor in the
pathogenesis of atherosclerosis; it is shown that not only does the
consumption of denatured BGG correlate at all three major
epidemiological levels--historical, international and social class--but
this highly reactive and invasive molecule also seems to possess the
biological and/or pathological properties from which could evolve the
main pathological changes found not only in atherosclerosis but also in
some of its complications."

Heat-denatured....hmmmm kinda sounds like pasteurization to me.

Except virtually all of the protein is broken down into amino acids in the
digestive tract before absorbtion. "Sounds like" is not the same thing as
"is."

Not necessarily. If you can find a way to get a copy of some of Dr.
Royal Lee's lectures on the problem of cooking proteins in the presence
of sugars you'd change your mind. Not to mention, there are plenty of
pages online where you can read up on Dr. Francis Pottenger's studies
on the effects of raw and pasteurized foods on cats.

You also need to watch out what kind of cow you get your milk from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12957678

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
Maybe I'm wrong, but couldn't an increase in HMB CoA reductase activity
be a bad thing?

Yet there were no changes in the hepatic lipids or cholesterol.

I'd also like to point out that I found many reports on pubmed on the
heart benefits on dairy products, but most of them were tied to yogurt
or did not mention what type of milk product was in question. Nor did
those studies mention the addition of powdered milk to the milk in
question.

Which means that you're offering basically unsupported hypotheses.

Not even close. I'm making a distinction between the types of dairy
products studied. Like most people, you seem to want to lump all dairy
products into one. That's like saying that since a Yugo and a Lotus
both have 4 wheels, seats and a steering wheel that they're exactly the
same. Obviously they are not. The same is true with many foods. Why
do you think we've seen so many conflicting reports on the benefits of
eggs over the decades? You can take a battery eggs from hens that have
been fed "who knows what" and compare its nutritional value to an egg
from a hen that roam free on green grass, scavenging for worms and
insects, and you'll find that there are HUGE nutritional differences.

That's why you'll see me qualifiy raw milk with the words "grass fed"
practically every time I mention raw milk. I have learned to make a
distinction.

I'll get back to you with more information on the phosphatase / calcium
thing ASAP. I'm probably going to have to go offline to find the info.

Max.

Getting back to the data to show better calcium building. Sally Fallon
confirmed my suspicion that there are no recent studies of raw milk.
In her words, the FDA had decreed "Thou shalt not study raw milk." So
you haev to look way back into the past for this data, but it DOES
exist. Here's a power point presentation with some studies referenced
in it. Unfortunately it doesn't give any data from the studies other
than their titles. If you know of a way to get more information,
please let me know.

The PPP can be found he
http://www.realmilk.com/ppt/RawMilk.PPT

If you'll go down to page 40, you'll see this:
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Children fed raw milk have more resistance to TB than children fed
pasteurized milk. (Lancet, p 1142, 5/8/37)

Pathological organisms do not grow in raw milk but proliferate in
pasteurized milk. (The Drug and Cosmetic Industry, 43:1:109, July 1938)

Raw milk prevents scurvy and protects against flu, diphtheria and
pneumonia. (Am J Dis Child, Nov 1917)

Raw milk prevents tooth decay. (Lancet, p 1142, 5/8/37)

Raw milk promotes growth and calcium absorption. (Ohio Agricultural
Experiment Station Bulletin 518, p 8, 1/33)

Raw cream prevents joint stiffness. (Annual Review of Biochemistry,
18:435, 1944) (Max's note - this is part of the Wulzen anti-stiffness
factor I previously mentioned.)

Raw milk protects against asthma and allergic skin problems. (Lancet
353:1485, 1999)

After three generations on pasteurized milk, cats developed numerous
health problems and pathologies of behavior. At four generations, all
reproduction ceased. (Pottenger's Cats, 1983, Price-Pottenger
Nutrition Foundation)

Pasteurization destroys B complex, C, D, enzymes and whey proteins.
(See numerous abstracts listed at www.realmilk.com)
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Just in case you don't have MS PowerPoint, I'll paste in some text from
the next few pages:

Page 41:
Studies on Raw vs Pasteurized Milk at Randleigh Farm, 1935-1940

Above: Rat fed only raw milk. Good development, healthy fur.

Below: Rats fed only pasteurized milk. Poor development. Hairless
areas (acrodynia) due to deficiency of vitamin B-6.

Page 42:
Internal Development, Raw vs Pasteurized

Rat fed pasteurized milk has poor color and compromised integrity of
internal organs.

Page 43:
Raw Milk vs. PasteurizedThere IS a difference!

Fig 12. Internal organs of a female cat fed diet of one-third raw meat
and two-thirds raw milk. Note excellent condition of fur and creamy
yellow subcutaneous tissue with high vascularity. Moderate heart size.
Good liver, firm intestines and resting uterus.

Fig 13. Internal organs of female cat fed diet of one-third raw meat
and two-thirds pasteurized milk. Note poor tone of skin and inferior
quality of fur. Fair heart. Slight fatty atrophy of the liver. Lack of
intestinal tone; moderate distention of the uterus. Skin has a purplish
discoloration due to congestion.

Page 44:
Bone Development

Six-Month Study

PASTEURIZED-Milk-Fed Rat
Weighed 146 grams
Bones shorter and less dense

RAW-Milk-Fed Rat
Weighed 206 grams
Bones longer and more dense

One-to-One Exposure of Femur, Tibia and Fibia

Page 45:
Guinea Pig Studies of Dr. Rosalind Wulzen and Alice Bahrs, Department
of Zoology, Oregon State College

Whole Raw Milk - Excellent growth; no abnormalities

Whole Pasteurized Milk - Poor growth; muscle stiffness; emaciation and
weakness; death within one year. Autopsy revealed atrophied muscles
streaked with calcification; tri-calcium deposits under skin, in
joints, heart and other organs.

Page 46:
Rat Studies of Dr. Ernest Scott and Professor Lowell Erf, Ohio State
University

Whole Raw Milk - Good growth; sleek coat; clear eyes; excellent
dispositions; enjoyed being petted.

Whole Pasteurized Milk - Rough coat; slow growth; eyes lacked luster;
anemia; loss of vitality and weight; very irritable, often showing a
tendency to bite when handled.

Page 47:
The Milk Cure

ANCIENT: Since ancient times, an exclusive raw milk diet has been used
to cure many diseases.
MAYO CLINIC: In the early 1900s, the "Milk Cure" was used at the
Mayo clinic to successfully treat cancer, weight loss, kidney disease,
allergies, skin problems, urinary tract problems, prostate problems,
chronic fatigue and many other chronic conditions.
ONLY WITH RAW MILK: The Milk Cure only works with raw milk; pasteurized
milk does not have these curative powers.

Crewe, JR. Raw Milk Cures Many Diseases, www.realmilk.com

It's going to take a lot more work to find more than that, but it's a
good start. There's plenty of evidence that raw milk is superior to
pasteurized milk, but it's just not available online.

Max.

"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...
Jeff wrote:
"Max C." wrote in message
ps.com...

And those who lack the ability to produce the pancreatic enzyme
phosphatase in proper quantities will lack the ability to assimilate
calcium. It's the same scenario and those who can not produce lactase
and so can not assimilate the milk sugar lactose.

That is making three assumptions:

1) There are people who make the other pancreatic enzymes, but not
phosphatase. People who lack pancreatic enzymes have major problems with
malabsorbtion, like not being able to gain weight and digestive system
problems.

Building an enzyme is not magic. Each enzyme requires very specific
building blocks in order to be built. It is entirely possible (as
represented by those who don't produce enough lactase, yet produce
plenty of other digestive enzymes) that the body has all the building
blocks it need to build one type enzyme and not another.

ROFL. Do you know anything about biochemistry? The building blocks of
proteins are amino acids. There are twenty (20) amino acids commonly found
in proteins. There are very few conditions where otherwise healthy people
would be able to make most enzymes and not other enzymes because they share
the same twenty (20) building blocks.

Your all or
nothing view is unrealistic.

Why?

2) The phosphatase in the milk is actually active and in sufficentg
quantities in the digestive system of the person who is drinking the
milk.
Acid (like the acid in the stomach) is pretty good at inactivating
enzymes.

Inactivating, yes, but Dr. Edward Howell did tons of research on this
subject and showed that A: a great deal of food enzymes passed in the
active form into the small intesting and B: many of those that were
inactivated were done so by being in an improper pH for them to be
active. Once they were back in a proper pH environment, they became
active again.

Not if they were broken down into amino acids by the stomach enzymes or the
stomach acid.

And the proteases, especially in the small intestine, are good at chewing
up
enzymes.

That's a very good point, and VITAL to this discussion. You see,
phosphatase also aids in calcium transport into bone.

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-...ooked-2b.shtml

The fact is that proteins, including enzymes, are mostly broken down by the
digestive tract. While some whole proteins are absorbed, these have
significance mostly for the immune system.

You'll find
plenty of evidence of that on pubmed. Since very specific building
blocks are required for the body to build phosphatse enzymes, what
better source of the building blocks than a broken down phosphatase
enzyme? Pasteurization does not neutralize phosphatase. It destroys
it. Dr. Royal Lee did extensive research on the problem with cooking
protein in the presence of sugar. He included several points of his
research in many of his lectures in the 1940s and 50s.

So what? You have yet to show that:

1) Phosphatase is absorbed in a working form by the digestive tract;

2) Show that the phosphatase that is active in our bodies is not human.

The enzyme is actually called alkaline phosphatase, indicating that
it would be inactive until it gets into the alkaline environment of the
small intestine, if it survives that far through the digestive tract.

Again, Dr. Howell showed clear evidence that a high percentage of food
enzymes remain in tact into the small intestine.

Yeah, and there they are digested into amino acids.

3) The phosphatase actually makes a difference in the amount of calcium
that
is absorbed by humans.

I'm still working on this. The problem is that most of the data on
this point is from the VERY early 1900's when pasteurization was taking
hold. Such data is not available online... and there's absolutely NO
reason for any team of scientists to research it right now. Who would
pay them? The government does not agree with the raw milk concept and
there are no large corporations trying to make a name for themselves
(yet.) Believe me, I want to give you this information as much as you
want to read it.

None of the three assumptions have been adequately supported.

I was asking for peer-reviewed evidence that calcium absorbtion is
less
after pasteurization.

I have not found any. Someone has to PAY for scientific studies, and
there are no multinational grass fed raw milk companies willing to fork
over the money. I'll do some digging and see what I can come up with.

If you're not keen on reading an entire book, I found this little
description of phosphatase for you:

PHOSPHATASE:

A key enzyme in accessing two of milk's important minerals,
phosphorus
and calcium, phosphatase hydrolyses (breaks down with water) complex
compounds in milk (called phosphate esters) to release phosphorus
ions.
Optimal calcium absorption is dependent on proper ratios of
phosphorus
and magnesium.

Phosphatase is completely destroyed at the lowest typical
pasteurizing
temperatures (which are also the highest needed to kill pathogenic
bacteria). Food processors test for the total absence of phosphatase
to
determine if pasteurization was successful. Presumably, its absence
also makes getting phosphorus and calcium out of the milk more
difficult for our bodies.

Presumably. Wow, that shows that this was well-iuvestigated.


My favorite line is saying that milk is formulated for calves.
It
is
not
like oranges, apples, wheat or anything else was formulated as a
healthy
food for humans. Drinking milk is no more or less natural than
eating
these
foods.

Agreed. Under that logic, apples are strictly designed to make
baby
apple trees.

The bottom line is that it is up to consumers to learn about the
benefits
and drawbacks of any food.

I'll agree, with stipulations. If all data on all food were
clear
cut,
I would agree 100%, however, there are companies and individuals
who
have a conflict of interest when it comes to providing such data.
The
discussion I've been in regarding aspartame is a perfect example.
NutraSweet would have one believe there is no data to support
negative
health implications associated with its product. Obviously
that's
completely false, as I have shown evidence to the contrary. What
consumers *NEED* are real facts from unbiased sources. It is sad
that
such is often not the case in this world.

Compared to the risks of eating Big Macs, Whoppers, KFC, and
Freedom
Fries
(known as French Fries before the Iraq War), milk is a
relatively
healthy
food, especially low-fat milk.

Completely disagree. Low fat milk usually has powdered milk
added
back
to it to thicken it up. That powdered milk contains oxidized
cholesterol and rancid fats, both produced by the powdering
process
which usually involves high heat and or pressure. The process of
homogenization also renders the fat more suseptible to
rancidification,
since it breaks apart the fat globules and unnaturally exposes
them
to
more oxygen. It's those types of cholesterol and fat that causes
heart
disease, not the natural, unadulterated fats found in raw milk
from
grass fed animals.

Whole fat raw milk from grass fed cows is full of fat soluble
vitamins
as well as nutrients not found in milk from grain fed cows, like
the
Wulzen anti-stiffness factor and Dr. Price's Activator X.

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...minprimer.html
"Activator X or the Price Factor: Discovered by Weston Price,
this
fat-soluble nutrient is a potent catalyst to mineral absorption.
It
is
found in certain fatty parts of animals that feed on young green
growing plants or microorganisms, such as organ meats, fish and
shellfish, fish eggs and butter from cows eating rapidly growing
green
grass of spring and fall pasturage. Largely absent today, the
Price
Factor was present in all traditional diets."

Peer-reviewed evidence, please.

Jeff

HA! You're funny. Do you want peer reviewed evidence that powdered
milk is added back your precious low fat milk? You won't find any
because science is not required to prove it. Or are you asking for
peer reviewed evidence that oxidized cholesterol and rancid fats
cause
heart disease? I should hope that is not the case, since it's
hardly
an arguable point of discussion.

Even *if* I were completely wrong about raw milk, at best it would
only
mean that milk, in general, should not be considered a beneficial
food.
So, you'd better get busy finding that peer reviewed evidence that
rancid fat and oxydized cholesterol won't cause disease. You
started
the claim, so you go first.

Max.

No, peer-reviewed evidenced that drinking low-fat milk is as unhealthy
as
you claim.

Oh, is THAT all? Jeez, why didn't you say so? Since it is not in
question that powdered milk is added to low fat milk, and since we know
that the heating process oxidizes the cholesterol therein, all you
really need to know is what the addition of that oxidized cholesterol
will do to you:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Actually, that's incorrect. It is non-fat milk solids that are usually
added
to milk, especially low-fat milk. There still are some fats in the
non-fat
milk solids, but the amount of fat is relatively small. You haven't
demonstrated that there is enough oxidized fat in non-fat or low-fat milk
to
be of concern.

You forgot about the oxidized cholesterol.

Cholesterol is a type of fat.


BUUUUT of course you're going to say "Hey, that's not milk." Well, if
I must:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
"Evidence is related supporting the hypothesis that heat-denatured
bovine immunoglobulin (BGG) may be a major risk factor in the
pathogenesis of atherosclerosis; it is shown that not only does the
consumption of denatured BGG correlate at all three major
epidemiological levels--historical, international and social class--but
this highly reactive and invasive molecule also seems to possess the
biological and/or pathological properties from which could evolve the
main pathological changes found not only in atherosclerosis but also in
some of its complications."

Heat-denatured....hmmmm kinda sounds like pasteurization to me.

Except virtually all of the protein is broken down into amino acids in
the
digestive tract before absorbtion. "Sounds like" is not the same thing as
"is."

Not necessarily. If you can find a way to get a copy of some of Dr.
Royal Lee's lectures on the problem of cooking proteins in the presence
of sugars you'd change your mind. Not to mention, there are plenty of
pages online where you can read up on Dr. Francis Pottenger's studies
on the effects of raw and pasteurized foods on cats.

You also need to watch out what kind of cow you get your milk from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12957678

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
Maybe I'm wrong, but couldn't an increase in HMB CoA reductase activity
be a bad thing?

Yet there were no changes in the hepatic lipids or cholesterol.

I'd also like to point out that I found many reports on pubmed on the
heart benefits on dairy products, but most of them were tied to yogurt
or did not mention what type of milk product was in question. Nor did
those studies mention the addition of powdered milk to the milk in
question.

Which means that you're offering basically unsupported hypotheses.

Not even close. I'm making a distinction between the types of dairy
products studied. Like most people, you seem to want to lump all dairy
products into one. That's like saying that since a Yugo and a Lotus
both have 4 wheels, seats and a steering wheel that they're exactly the
same. Obviously they are not. The same is true with many foods. Why
do you think we've seen so many conflicting reports on the benefits of
eggs over the decades? You can take a battery eggs from hens that have
been fed "who knows what" and compare its nutritional value to an egg
from a hen that roam free on green grass, scavenging for worms and
insects, and you'll find that there are HUGE nutritional differences.

That's why you'll see me qualifiy raw milk with the words "grass fed"
practically every time I mention raw milk. I have learned to make a
distinction.

I'll get back to you with more information on the phosphatase / calcium
thing ASAP. I'm probably going to have to go offline to find the info.

Max.

"Vernon" anere@anhere wrote in message
m...

"Max C." wrote in message
ps.com...



No, peer-reviewed evidenced that drinking low-fat milk is as unhealthy
as
you claim.

"Peer" can mean someone who drinks milk or someone who doesn't drink milk.
Definition of "peer reviewed": "Reviewed by someone who I agree with and
thus is my egalitarian equal."

Incorrect. Peer-reviewed means reviewed by experts in the field, whether the
experts agree or disagree with you.

Most truth is obtained by dis-interested teams of researchers who have
nothing to gain or lose with the results (the opposite of "peer")

BTW, "low fat" needs defining. It is extremely difficult to find milk,
even directly form a farm, where cream has not been centrifically
separated and then some added back. Even without centrifigal separation,
much of the cream is skimmed off. Depending on the type of cattle, the
cream content is from 12% to 60% in real whole milk.


Oh, is THAT all? Jeez, why didn't you say so? Since it is not in
question that powdered milk is added to low fat milk, and since we know
that the heating process oxidizes the cholesterol therein, all you
really need to know is what the addition of that oxidized cholesterol
will do to you:

Of course all recent studies have not been able to show that ingested
cholesterol becomes or remains cholesterol when ingested. Cholesterol
build up in arteries is a result of other deficiencies.

There is no realistic evidence that milk or milk byproducts can raise
cholesterol. A slight bit of evidence exists that indicates
"substituting" milk for other foods (not common) or ingesting milk with
sugar added can effect cholesterol and circulation. (i.e. 50% of calories
in a meal from ice cream)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


Summation quote from above rabbit test.
"We have suggested that"

Jan Drew wrote:
"just stupid wrote:

Jan Drew wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

copyrighted material deleted

Wrong.

FAIR USE
The NewsTarget Network publishes excerpts and summaries from copyrighted
works under Fair Use, which allows the use of copyrighted materials for
purposes of commentary and criticism for the public interest. NewsTarget
transforms summaries of the original copyrighted work into a new format
and
adds new information and value in the form of commentary or criticism.

He's not wrong, you are.

NO. I wrote to Mike Adams, I suggest you do the same thing.


Writing to Mike Adams, Santa Claus or anyone else does not change
the fact that it is copyrighted material.

There is no reason for me to write to Mike Adams.
I suggest you soak your head.

Jeff said that the material is copyrighted, he is correct and you are
wrong
to say that it is not.



You posted copyrighted material, he deleted it
and courteously noted it.

You knew he was right when yoou contradicted him.
you lied, again, shrew.

No, I did not lie, neither am I a shrew.

You did lie and you lied again when you denied it.


Now what were you saying about attacking?

*That's right... when you can't debate the issue, just attack the
messenger. Works every time, huh. :-/ "*

So you think you get to attack anyone as much as you want
and no-one can give it back?

You called me stupid without reason.
That fits the behavior of "a scolding nagging bad-tempered woman"
as does your postin history. You are a lying shrew.

"Jeff" wrote in message
.net...

"Vernon" anere@anhere wrote in message
m...

"Max C." wrote in message
ps.com...



No, peer-reviewed evidenced that drinking low-fat milk is as unhealthy
as
you claim.

"Peer" can mean someone who drinks milk or someone who doesn't drink
milk.
Definition of "peer reviewed": "Reviewed by someone who I agree with and
thus is my egalitarian equal."

Incorrect. Peer-reviewed means reviewed by experts in the field, whether
the experts agree or disagree with you.

It always ends up whether they agree or disagree for the reader.
PEER is an equal. PEER is a level.
The peer of an amateur is an amateur.

Peer review of a professor in college is another professor. THAT is where
the phrase came from.

I.E. Once I was called for jury duty. The person being tried was a customer
of a contractor. I was a contractor, thus excuse (eliminated) because I was
not a PEER of the accused person.

If people want to get in scientific discussions, obsessions and glitz
phrases always lose.