Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Natural News)   Arkansas decides it's okay for citizens to suck on a tit not owned by the federal government   (naturalnews.com) divider line 24
    More: Spiffy, Arkansas, federal government, Mike Beebe, legal defense fund, farms  
•       •       •

3201 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Sep 2013 at 10:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-14 09:01:59 AM  
3 votes:
I have absolutely no problem with this.  Provided that everybody drinking the raw milk has full insurance coverage, of course.  Otherwise, they should change the law to state that the EMTALA regs don't count for anyone who drinks raw milk and shows up uninsured at a healthcare facility suffering from Campylobacter, e Coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Norovirus, Brucella, or Listeria.  Free treatment should be a barf bag and a porta-potti, and an educational flyer on why raw milk actually isn't the miracle drug that kook woo-science sites like Natural News make it out to be.
2013-09-14 02:17:07 PM  
2 votes:

AntiNerd: RedPhoenix122:
Care to link to something that doesn't have a bias?

Can you?

The source you are complaining about cites scientific sources and specific explanations of causality. They are biased but they are careful with their arguments. They do not pretend to not being biased. They use data from the CDC, USDA (FDA), medical journals and other peer-reviewed data sources. I am not sure what your problem is with that.

Rather than just throwing mud and hoping the weak minded will go along with you, would you mind sharing what they got wrong?


Maybe the "data from the CDC" part.

http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers .h tml
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/nonpasteurized-outbreaks.html
2013-09-14 12:53:08 PM  
2 votes:

frepnog: notto: Maybe try again, what study backs the claim
"On a per-serving basis, raw milk is as safe or several times safer than pasteurized milk "

no study, because if it had any truth, pasteurization would not be a thing.


Actually, the claim is based on this and if you find raw milk on the left side and the right side of the chart, it is clear the person making such a claim can't read a simple chart.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/RiskSafetyAssessment/ucm 18 5292.htm

They are combining per serving statistics and per annum statistics into a lie.  Truth is not their strong suit.
2013-09-14 11:58:15 AM  
2 votes:

Smackledorfer: As for reported illness comparisons, I'll pass on assuming the raw milk weirdos do not also overlap their distrust of medical science by skipping the doctor and treating themselves all sorts of ridiculous crap.  You guys sound like anti-vaxxers


Natural News is anti-vax.

They also claim gluten causes autism and arthritis. Basically, Natural News is here to tell you what The Big Conspiracy is trying to keep hidden from you.
2013-09-14 10:56:10 AM  
2 votes:

buzzcut73: Lenny_da_Hog: notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.

I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.

I had somebody in my General Chem II class last year that was studying to be a Naturopath. After seeing her understanding of even basic concepts, I'm even more convinced that science isn't their strong point.


I'm all about natural health remedies.  Preferably after their active components have been isolated and their therapeutic effectiveness verified in double-blind clinical testing.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-14 10:12:33 AM  
2 votes:
This is why we need the individual mandate.  otherwise these people will turn up at the emergency room with no insurance and stick the rest of us with the expense.
2013-09-14 10:05:11 AM  
2 votes:

dahmers love zombie: I have absolutely no problem with this.  Provided that everybody drinking the raw milk has full insurance coverage, of course.  Otherwise, they should change the law to state that the EMTALA regs don't count for anyone who drinks raw milk and shows up uninsured at a healthcare facility suffering from Campylobacter, e Coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Norovirus, Brucella, or Listeria.  Free treatment should be a barf bag and a porta-potti, and an educational flyer on why raw milk actually isn't the miracle drug that kook woo-science sites like Natural News make it out to be.


Unless it is a kid getting sick, then treat the kid and call child services on the parents
2013-09-14 06:27:56 PM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?

OK, 'wild' instead of natural.

Why is "wild" better? All commercial yeasts were wild at one point. Brewers isolate yeast strains to better control the flavored imparted by the yeast.

When relying on "wild" yeast, many more organisms can get in the beer than are desired. The tart flavor imparted by bacterial infection in lambics are often complimented with the sweetness of fruit. A blonde ale left to spontaneous ferment would be undrinkable.

I enjoy the sour tart flavors of lambics, even those that don't contain fruit to sweeten them.  Of course, it's a niche style, and the far more predictable beers brewed with carefully controlled commercial yeasts are certainly more popular.  More popular doesn't mean more interesting, or even better, however.  It's like stopping for dinner on a road trip - do you go with the Cracker Barrel right at the exit that's a known quantity, or take a side road a bit and find a local joint that might be a lot better, at the risk of going somewhere that might end up being a lot worse.  I like to roll the dice in those situations.


Rolling the dice when it comes to which group of billions of microorganisms ferment your beer is profoundly stupid.
2013-09-14 06:26:42 PM  
1 votes:

max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?

OK, 'wild' instead of natural.

Why is "wild" better? All commercial yeasts were wild at one point. Brewers isolate yeast strains to better control the flavored imparted by the yeast.

When relying on "wild" yeast, many more organisms can get in the beer than are desired. The tart flavor imparted by bacterial infection in lambics are often complimented with the sweetness of fruit. A blonde ale left to spontaneous ferment would be undrinkable.


Anyone who thinks "natural" or "wild" means the same as "healthy" should eat a fistful of hemlock.
2013-09-14 06:02:57 PM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?

OK, 'wild' instead of natural.


Why is "wild" better? All commercial yeasts were wild at one point. Brewers isolate yeast strains to better control the flavored imparted by the yeast.

When relying on "wild" yeast, many more organisms can get in the beer than are desired. The tart flavor imparted by bacterial infection in lambics are often complimented with the sweetness of fruit. A blonde ale left to spontaneous ferment would be undrinkable.
2013-09-14 05:06:23 PM  
1 votes:
Ah, I love raw milk threads.  Brings out a nice mix of FREEEDOOMMM food Libertarians and hipsters.
2013-09-14 02:35:15 PM  
1 votes:
RedPhoenix122:
Rather than just throwing mud and hoping the weak minded will go along with you, would you mind sharing what they got wrong?

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/RiskSafetyAssessment/ucm 18 5292.htm

Listeria monocytogenes Risk Assessment: Executive SummaryFDA/Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
USDA/Food Safety and Inspection Service
September 2003



Predicted Median Cases of Listeriosis for 23 Food Categories
Per Serving Basis

Unpasteurized  Fluid Milk
7.1x10-9

Pasteurized  Fluid Milk
1.0x10-9
2013-09-14 02:25:10 PM  
1 votes:

AntiNerd: Smackledorfer: As for reported illness comparisons, I'll pass on assuming the raw milk weirdos do not also overlap their distrust of medical science by skipping the doctor and treating themselves all sorts of ridiculous crap.  You guys sound like anti-vaxxers.

You sound really angry for some reason.


The "you sound angry" thing made me laugh, because conspiracy nutters in general (of which the raw-milk and anti-vaccine types are a subset) are usually really pissed off at all of the people who just "don't get it". The last one I talked to  - at the time she was berating me for taking the blood pressure medication my doctor had prescribed - became furious when I didn't immediately agree to stop taking it. She'd studied to be a "nutritionist" so she had to know better than my doctor, who was just a pawn of the pharmaceutical companies.

Most of us just get annoyed when we're lectured at by people who clearly don't know what they're talking about. We only get actually angry when their foolishness causes children to be unnecessarily exposed to risks like polio.
2013-09-14 02:13:22 PM  
1 votes:
As a past consumer of raw milk I would like to throw my opinion into this debate.

First some background information.  I come from a third world country, Romania to be exact. I lived in a small town and barter was very common, we got meat, milk and wheat in this way.  Now I swear by raw milk, I think its delicious, I think the flavor is richer than any store brand milk here but there are very specific reasons for that.  I can also tolerate raw milk better and there is a scientific reason for that too.  Personally I think that if people are responsible enough, they should have access to raw milk.  Now with that said, Arkansas opening up the floodgates like this is going to lead to one hell of a rush on emergency care in the first few years and this was a mistake.

My Grandparents always handled the milk processing, usually when it was going on, I was barred from the kitchen.  I did take note of the process and I will state that my grandparents were always careful to fully process the milk before anyone got to it.  No matter how many times or how often I pleaded, I was never allowed to drink the raw batch.

Also from a chemical and biological perspective, anyone drinking pure raw milk more than once a week is risking serious levels of obesity.

/On a side note, I've also had to take the TB Antibiotics for 8 months, destroyed 6% of my liver at the time.
2013-09-14 12:47:22 PM  
1 votes:
Enjoy your listeria.
2013-09-14 12:14:14 PM  
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: Smackledorfer: As for reported illness comparisons, I'll pass on assuming the raw milk weirdos do not also overlap their distrust of medical science by skipping the doctor and treating themselves all sorts of ridiculous crap.  You guys sound like anti-vaxxers

Natural News is anti-vax.

They also claim gluten causes autism and arthritis. Basically, Natural News is here to tell you what The Big Conspiracy is trying to keep hidden from you.


As someone with an autistic son I really want to cockpunch these people. There are some kids with extreme food allergies where gluten can manifest itself as autistic-like symptoms and show remarkable behavior improvement when you alter their diet. However they've managed to get this ass-backwards to claim gluten causes autism.
2013-09-14 11:49:07 AM  
1 votes:

AntiNerd: Citation


I read the cited materials.  I can find no comparison that backs the claim "On a per-serving basis, raw milk is as safe or several times safer than pasteurized milk".

Can you help me out?
2013-09-14 11:46:52 AM  
1 votes:

AntiNerd: Would it surprise you to learn that more people have gotten sick from pasteurized milk on a per serving basis than from raw milk?


I would, mainly because it isn't true.

Citation:

Here's how your "study" was done:

The key figure that permits a calculation of raw milk illnesses on a per-person basis comes from a 2007 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) FoodNet survey, which found that 3.04 percent of the population consumes raw milk, or about 9.4 million people, based on the 2010 census. This number may in fact be larger in 2011 as raw milk is growing in popularity.  For example, sales of raw milk increased 25 percent in California in 2010, while sales of pasteurized milk declined 3 percent.
 
In addition, Dr. Beals has compiled published reports of illness attributed to raw milk from 1999 to 2010.  During the eleven-year period, illnesses attributed to raw milk averaged 42 per year.


That's an incredibly shiatty way to gather data. It can't be called a useful study by any means.
2013-09-14 10:48:03 AM  
1 votes:

notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.


I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.
2013-09-14 10:41:28 AM  
1 votes:
Subby, I see nothing here that has anything to download with the FEDERAL government. Are you just that excited about posting stories that you think are Anti-Obama that you don't even read them first to make sure?
2013-09-14 10:33:43 AM  
1 votes:
This is one step on the glorious road to 45 year life expectancy!  Keep going Arkansas!  Don't stop till we hit 35!
2013-09-14 10:28:14 AM  
1 votes:

dahmers love zombie: I have absolutely no problem with this.  Provided that everybody drinking the raw milk has full insurance coverage, of course.  Otherwise, they should change the law to state that the EMTALA regs don't count for anyone who drinks raw milk and shows up uninsured at a healthcare facility suffering from Campylobacter, e Coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Norovirus, Brucella, or Listeria.  Free treatment should be a barf bag and a porta-potti, and an educational flyer on why raw milk actually isn't the miracle drug that kook woo-science sites like Natural News make it out to be.


Same thing for folks that ride motorcycles without helmets so they can feel the wind in their hair and asphalt on their basal ganglia.
2013-09-14 10:22:33 AM  
1 votes:
Enjoy your TB, dipshiats. 

Just FYI, the medication required to treat that costs a fortune, makes you nauseous as hell, can give you heptatis, and oh: you have to take it for 4 - 12 months.

Or, you could, you know...PASTEURIZE YOUR farkING MILK. Or move to your choice of developing countries; you can get all the raw milk there that you want.
2013-09-14 10:20:40 AM  
1 votes:
It's like they have completely forgot the last 100 years or so and why we do things the way we do. Louis Pasteur would be hanging his head in shame.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report