Wisconsin Pushes to Have Raw Milk Farmer Vernon Hershberger Jailed

[Big Blue Sky]

http://www.realfarmacy.com/

The site is the wet dream for any nut who thinks he has to prepare for the apokalypse.

If they have information that is proven to be right I really don't care.

[Tiberius]

You should care. A site like that may once in a while have legitimate information on it. The problem is, most of the time they either don't, or they manipulate the data to suit their agenda. Science is only supposed to have one agenda: seeking the truth.

Conspiracy sites have several agendas, usually based on bad science and the idea that the government is out to get them.

[Creed of Heresy]

Yeah this guy is a pretty typical example of the country bumpkin idiots that comprise any of the areas of my state that aren't in the cities.

This comes to one of those libertarian-vs-liberal things. "Do we let them poison themselves or try to stop them?" Well, truth be told, if they want to sell it, then by all means, let them sell it. But first, they need to have their bottles labeled VERY CLEARLY what the dangers of drinking raw milk are. ALL the dangers, too, on EVERY bottle. If they think they should be allowed to sell their product WITHOUT warning labels, then no. No, you should not be allowed to do that, because then it's just outright negligence of responsibility. If you sell a product that could be hazardous to health and safety then it needs to be very labeled as such, and failure to do so should result in massive fucking fines. It's all very well and good to say "if people want to subject themselves to risk then they should be allowed to," and, sure, they should be. But only if they KNOW it's a risk. If you just let guys like this sell raw milk and all that's on the bottle is just "this is raw milk!" and nothing else, then people might go "...Well, maybe it tastes better," without having a chance to learn what the dangers are. Fuck knows I dunno what the hell kinda dangers are entailed in non-pasteurized milk, I can't exactly say I've dedicated any portion of my life to studying fucking milk production, so if I were to buy a bottle of it, and it didn't have a listed warning, I'd be buying something that the seller KNEW could be dangerous, but failed to inform me that it was so, and the seller has a responsibility to inform the purchasing parties of the risks involved.

[Big Blue Sky]

You should care. A site like that may once in a while have legitimate information on it. The problem is, most of the time they either don't, or they manipulate the data to suit their agenda. Science is only supposed to have one agenda: seeking the truth.

Conspiracy sites have several agendas, usually based on bad science and the idea that the government is out to get them.

yea you do have a point but I still trust more those conspiracy sites than fox news.

---

[quote='Tiberius' pid='455032' dateline='1370243605']
You should care. A site like that may once in a while have legitimate information on it. The problem is, most of the time they either don't, or they manipulate the data to suit their agenda. Science is only supposed to have one agenda: seeking the truth.

Conspiracy sites have several agendas, usually based on bad science and the idea that the government is out to get them.

And isn't the mainstream media doing the exact same thing?

[thesummerqueen]

yea you do have a point but I still trust more those conspiracy sites than fox news.

I wouldn't. Fox News is responsible to share holders and various other organizations. They're still a piece of shit, but they have more watch dogs and louder dissenters.

Any hack can build a website.

[KichigaiNeko]

Any hack can build a website.

Yep! Even lil' ol' me! :S

[Something completely different]

[The Grand Nudger]

Dangers? Hundreds of thousands of people died from communicable diseases (like TB) that were contracted from raw diary products. It was a serious public health concern - which is why the pasteurization initiative was undertaken. So no, I don't think "if they want to take the risk" applies.

"Hey hey everybody, I'm free to attempt to give myself a host of communicable diseases - don't infringe upon my rights!"

No. Forgive me for being uncomfortable with using "rights" as an excuse to reverse a hundred years of science based public health policy undertaken after hundreds of thousands of deaths -that works- to prevent hundreds of thousands more. "Raw milk" is biological warfare waged on behalf of ignorance. I'll pass.

[KichigaiNeko]

Milk is an excellent medium for microbial growth,[11] and when stored at ambient temperature bacteria and other pathogens soon proliferate.[12] Before the widespread urban growth caused by industrialisation, people kept dairy cows even in urban areas, and the short time between milking and consumption minimised the disease risk of drinking raw milk.[13] However, as urban densities increased and supply chains lengthened to the distance from country to city, the often days-old raw milk began being recognised as a source of disease. For example, between 1912 and 1937 some 65,000 people died of tuberculosis contracted from consuming milk in England and Wales alone.[14] Developed countries adopted pasteurization of milk in order to prevent such disease and loss of life, and as a result milk is now widely considered to be one of the safest foods.[13]

Proponents of unpasteurized milk make the argument that if milk is obtained from humanely raised cows that are grass fed and handled hygienically, then there is little problem with disease.[21] However, raw milk can become contaminated in a number of ways: by coming into contact with cow feces or bacteria living on the skin of cows, from an infection of the cow's udder, or from dirty equipment, among others.[22] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), improperly handled raw milk is responsible for nearly three times more hospitalizations than any other foodborne disease outbreak, making it one of the world's most dangerous food products.[23]

I am thinking this is what they (the authorities) are most afraid of

---

A side effect of the heating of pasteurization is that some vitamin and mineral content is lost. Soluble calcium and phosphorus decrease by 5%, thiamin and vitamin B12 by 10%, and vitamin C by 20%.[14][29] Because losses are small in comparison to the large amount of the two B-vitamins present, milk continues to provide significant amounts of thiamin and vitamin B12. As milk is not an important dietary source of vitamin C, this loss is not nutritionally significant.
Proponents of non-pasteurized raw milk credit it with having more beneficial bacteria and enzymes than its processed counterpart; however, raw milk is far more likely to contain harmful microbial contaminants, and pasteurization is the only effective way of killing most pathogenic bacteria.[30]

[Something completely different]

The second image is smallpocks and as far as I know, that has been wiped out.