Comment on Rip

Rooskie91@discuss.online ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• sir_pronoun@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I think it’s partly leftover dribble from the inane Gaia “theory” that was so strong in hippie circles. Everything natural (like bacteria in milk) is good, and you know, gut bacteria, yogurt, 's all good, right?

  Combine that with “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” beliefs that they don’t realize come from right wing nuts and you got a perfect diarrhea inducing cocktail that we all get to pay for with our taxes and our nerves.

  source

  • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    It’s interesting to see how a lot of the hippie “natural is good” memes got a new, completely different segment of the population to live on.

    source
  • maccentric@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    *drivel

    source
• The_v@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  My personal theory:

  First off, raw milk does taste noticably different than pasteurized and homogenized milk you find at the store.

  Pasteurization: heating the milk triggers the unfolding of proteins (Denaturation). This is what kills the bacteria but can also change the flavor of the milk.

  Homogenization. This process breaks up the fat into smaller segments so they stay in solution in the milk. The result is a less creamy flavor.

  People instinctually associate flavor with nutritional value. They think that better flavored food = better for you. This sort-of works in tomatoes and a few other fruit/vegetables. However taste perception is a complex blend of genetics, environmental conditions, and psychology. So the results are inherently unpredictable and completely unreliable.

  The unpasteurized crowd all fall for the 'it tastes better so it must be better". They then make all sorts of excuses to justify their instinct. " Big corporate milk is evil!!" Blah blah blah.

  source

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    UHT has a very different taste to pasteurised milk, but is pasteurised to raw milk such a big difference?

    source

    • InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      It does taste different.l but it’s still milk.
      I’ve grown up on a farm, and milk can even taste different from cow to cow, or at different times of the year if that changes their alimentation.
      Raw milk also usually has a higher fat content than what most people buy.
      Ours would average 4.5%.

      Different breeds also taste different, holsteins, ayrshires, jerseys, etc.

      I’ve never been a big fan of milk, so I can’t into much details on flavor.

      I personally wouldn’t procure raw milk from a farm I didn’t know very well.

      source

      • kunaltyagi@programming.dev ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I can’t taste the breed in market milk, but I could differentiate most cows just by taste of milk from my family’s farm. I can still tell the difference between brands and seasons.

        Market milk tastes kinda devoid of personality. But it is still milk. Just that milk from hundreds of cows gets mixed together

        source
• MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  There’s a whole subset of idiots that believe that you need to expose yourself to harmful shit to have a strong immune system. (See: all the people licking toilets and crap during lockdown)

  There’s some credible science to it, in the way that, an immunization is literally putting “harmful” stuff in you to train your immune system. This is known science that I should be able to mostly hand wave around since most people already know this. Immunizations are usually focusing on a key indicator, eg, for COVID, it’s the protein on the outside of the vital cell wall (all the spiky bits in the illustrations) or whatever… I’m no scientist. For other viruses and bacteria, it’s a deactivated version of the virus… It’s essentially “dead” for all intents and purposes. It just resembles the virus so closely that it effectively trains your immune system to recognize it.

  With all that being said, not all bacteria and viruses are something we can develop a natural immunity to, partly because some of them just kill us, partly because there’s something that is preventing it. Again I’m not a scientist.

  Regardless, these idiots think that by exposing yourself to “natural” viruses and bacteria, you can strengthen your immune system. Bluntly, it’s possible to do that, and why the fuck would you want to do it that way? It’s literally a randomized version of a science we already have that’s tried, tested, and proven effective, called immunizations. With immunizations, you get all the benefits of surviving the horrors of some of the most nasty viruses and bacteria out there, without suffering through what those viruses and bacteria are going to do to you.

  The whole thing is stupid.

  If anyone argues about “good” bacteria, tell them to eat yogurt. FFS.

  source

  • Sbauer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    It’s just unscientific thinking. People think virus and bacteria are the only thing you have to worry about, but lots of the time it’s the bacteria producing toxins as part of their metabolism that’s toxic to us. In other words, their shit is poison.

    One of the reasons we don’t want some groups of bacteria growing on our foodstuff is because they turn stuff literally toxic to us, completely unrelated to immune responses. Same way some moles can be toxic while others are not. It’s not because the fungus starts growing inside your body and has an epic free for all with your immune system. Its byproducts are just toxic. Like some berries or some plants are toxic.

    source

    • deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      yeah, mycotoxins (ie: toxic byproducts from fungi/mold decomposing your food stuffs) don’t always get broken down during cooking. So, while cooking according to standard food safety specs may have killed the mold, their shit is still everywhere ready to fuck your shit up.

      Not to mention that you have to survive an infection before it matters that you immune system learned to detect the infectious agent. Yes, the first inoculation techniques were literally just minor exposure to the infectious agent (eg: grinding smallpox scabs and blowing the resulting powder up the nose – wtf). While it technically worked, the mortality rate was still pretty damn high, just not quite as high as ya know getting smallpox the normal way, and thus really only used when a serious outbreak was occuring. We’ve gotten so much better at making vaccination safer and more effective, because we now know so much more about what is actually occuring biologically and know to use attenuated virus or just the benign protein coat alone to achieve results. Why would you ever want to go back to scab-snorting (or toilet licking, apparently, lol)?

      source

      • Sbauer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Toilet licking is especially stupid because different part of our body deal differently with the same bacteria. For example bacteria that are beneficial in your colon are most likely very much detrimental anywhere else. Training your immune system against colon bacteria is beyond stupid. Wouldn’t be surprised if that could lead to all kinds of issues.

        source
    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Hey, stop trying to be logical. These people don’t understand it, and that’s mean.

      /s

      source
  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    There’s a whole subset of idiots that believe that you need to expose yourself to harmful shit to have a strong immune system.

    And then they are anti-vaccine. ¯\(ツ)/¯

    source

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Ironic. Amirite?

      source
  • masterofn001@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    If we just go with it and give them some cyanide, arsenic, and a rod of spent uranium to boost their immunity, it would be a self solving problem.

    source

    • Kolanaki@yiffit.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Eating a uranium rod would give them plenty of calories to last the rest of their life.

      source
    • Danquebec@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      There was a king of ancient times who would microdose poison in order to get immune. To his defense, he lived in ancient times.

      source
    • Frogodendron@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Say that to Styrian arsenic eaters. Cyanide and uranium though are fair. Though there was an “energy drink” with thorium once.

      And there’s also the practice of mithridatism, but at least there is some evidence to support some of its instances.

      source
    • Taleya@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Can we put them in a box and call shroedinger?

      source
• Paraneoptera@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Many, but not all, of the anti -pasteurization people believe that there is an invisible “life force” in the milk that is killed by processing. This is an old idea, but this unfalsifiable and unprovable “life force” thinking undergirds a lot of pseudoscience. People believe in getting energy aligned and unblocked and so on, and believe that drinking milk with mysterious life force is more natural.

  source
• whotookkarl@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Some people are just defiant against reason and if someone they don’t like told them it’s safer or better that will assume the opposite conclusion then look for any terrible reason that agrees with their already accepted conclusion.

  source
• CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I don’t think it’s the heating up from milk that gets these people. It’s the mandate that it must be done.

  Same with masks. They want the FrEeDoM to do whatever the fuck they want, even if it hurts someone else.

  source
• someguy3@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  There is beneficial bacteria from what I hear, but the risk of harmful bacteria is leagues higher.

  source
• SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Raw milk that is carefully and intentionally produced for direct human consumption is a low-risk food with superb nutritional benefits.

  source

  • DV8@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    While it’s tastier raw, though that’s subjective I suppose, no nutrients are lost during pasteurization. Most minerals aren’t destroyed by that heat. Bacteria and most viri are destroyed however.

    The vitamins lost by pasteurization aren’t that significant that it compares to the chance of contracting salmonella.

    source

    • Danquebec@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Can you even destroy minerals by heat? If there’s an element there it won’t go away. Though I guess the molecule could change and it could be less bioavailable.

      source
    • SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Why am I being downvoted for stating something and providing a link to back up what I wrote? It’s not like I posted a bad link. In the previous link, it described how pre-pasteurized milk is categorically different from raw milk intended for direct human consumption. I think it’s interesting to note how preparation for pasteurization can affect the product.

      Also this link shows that there are indeed many nutritional benefits not available from pasteurized milk.

      source

      • DV8@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I suspect you’re downvoted for stating false information. Even now it seems your supposed evidence is literally from suspicious (to say the least) source.

        People following your advice expose themselves and their children to harm if follow your advice. Complaining about a downvote seems rather silly in that context.

        www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4890836/ I’ll quote from this link:

        A number of different claims have been made about the possible health benefits that could hypothetically be derived from the consumption of raw milk. Recent scientific reviews by various international groups have concluded that there was no reliable scientific evidence to support any of these suggested health benefits.13–15

        During pasteurization, there is no significant change in the nutritional quality of milk.16 Pasteurization does not cause any change in protein quality; minor levels (<7%) of denaturation of whey proteins have been reported due to pasteurization, but protein denaturation has no impact on protein nutritional quality. Pasteurization does not cause any change in the concentrations of minerals; minerals are very heat stable. Pasteurization may cause very minor losses (<10%) of vitamin C, folate (vitamin B9), vitamin B12, vitamin B6, and thiamine (vitamin B1). Of these vitamins, milk is an excellent source of only vitamin B12; milk has only low concentrations of most of the vitamins listed previously, which might show some minor losses on pasteurization. Pasteurization does not change the concentration of riboflavin (B2) (which is very heat stable) or fat-soluble vitamins like vitamin A or E.15 Other factors like type of packaging material, light exposure, and storage time/temperature have much larger impacts on vitamin losses in milk. Feed (like pasture grazing) can greatly influence milk composition, and sometimes proponents of raw milk confuse feed-related changes in milk composition with those caused directly by pasteurization. Other milk-processing approaches, like ultra-pasteurization and ultra-high temperature, have only a minor impact on the nutritional quality of milk

        source