Danger of Raw Food Products Made from Raw Milk (Yogurt, Cheese, and Butter)

[TylerDurden]

Does this mean babies are not supposed to be raw human breastmilk fed?

Don't be ridiculous, of course, raw human breastmilk is fine.

[TylerDurden]

The real problem re some types of foods being "less worse" than others is that we live in a society where food is so abundant that most of us can get hold of plenty of quality foods, without needing to resort to cooked foods and the like. As regards types of raw dairy, it's a safe bet that, if someone has some sort of food-intolerance to one type of raw dairy, that the other types of raw dairy are also harmful(in a small way) in the long run, even if no immediate overt symptoms are experienced.

[KD]

I think since AV and similar folks and whatever their conclusions are which might not match up for others it makes sense and is valuable to have individuals saying that they have used other methods that were more effective. Like isolating bacterias or viruses this is not really evidence that things are harmful just that for whatever factors due to level of health or genetics or internal issues OR inherent problems with the foods that these things were not useful for them and possibly even detrimental (not 'detoxes').

even if eating raw, fermented, room temperature, dairy fat only etc...are indeed just "less worse" and all lead at least on some level to a type of deficiency or problem..the thing is why would that matter if they could not meet their goals otherwise in the present, or could not even overcome their health issues to live that far in the future or just find that they just noticeably do better that way and at any moment can do something else if necessary.

Its easy for someone else to claim based on their own experience and some obvious conclusion that people do not inherently require dairy products that others would be better without them for those reasons but essentially this is just the flip side of the coin as to what AV and others offer. Its like "oh I don't need this" (based on their own opinion/self assessment/analysis of ancient vs non-modern people/problems) vs "everyone needs this" (based on their own opinion/self assessment/assessment of others). Essentially you see these arguments played out on countless diet battlefields backed up by countless unknowns about our origins and people seemingly doing good or bad on things that seem right to someone. You are always going to find the person eating just oranges for 5 years or eating only pemmican for 7 years or whatever. Some of these types of people on all sides even will claim what they do works for everyone and that everything else is bad or creates toxicity or is not food for humans. They key to explore concepts but ones that do not rule over what is actually working or not working regardless of how pure or logical it sounds.

I mean people shouldn't be applying any kind of idea that doesn't actually work for them based on someone else's concept. So if they find that chugging milk daily does not actually result in health they probably want to examine those claims or alter what they are doing but also see if those things were really in line with what people were proposing in the first place.

[TylerDurden]

What you forget is that, as a group, we are supposed to recommend what works best for the majority of people. Sure, there will always be exceptions who seem to have no issues with certain cooked foods, for example, and there are larger subsets of people who need to go RZC rather than raw omnivore, or vice versa. If we were to say "just eat whatever you want  and see what works" that would just waste peoples' time for months/years before they found what actually worked for them. Better to provide short-cuts so that they can find out what works best for most people, and then tailor the diet to fit their needs, re adding in raw dairy or whatever, if they feel the need.

[KD]

sure, particularly since its a paleo centered forum. The issue is more when people state that dairy has no use for anyone (or in a discussion thread that it is inevitably automatically worse than X paleo food/quantity) and then cite things that really are tautological arguments since they use the very principles/logic of the diet itself - and are not expressed as opinions.

As for allergies. Being skeptical of all claims of 'health experts' I no longer have a grasp of what an allergy or food intolerance even is. It seems like all my allergies unilaterally go away as time goes on so I don't see the allergies to supposed harmful things becoming less acute and less sensitive while others go down and health goes up.

I think people that have intolerances to fruit or seafood should be able to reverse those if they desire. So to me this criticism is also just a blanket extension of the observation that we have not been eating it for all eternity so that the intolerance is beneficial or something whereas seafood or fruit allergies are the only things in the realm of modern toxicity because these of course are healthful in any type or quantity... I mean I thought red meat was the only thing generally people could not be allergic to, but there are beef allergies.

I don't have all the data, but it seems like quite a few people even on this site consume dairy products including people who were not using dairy products for some time and now are again. People don't have to claim one can eat whatever while acknowledging that this is true and that not all these people are following any particular system or always rationalizing detoxes and the like.

[raw-al]

What you forget is that, as a group, we are supposed to recommend what works best for the majority of people.

To use your expression b*llsh#t.

We are not in the business of telling anyone how to live/eat. We are discussing our experience. We are incapable of giving out the last word in diet indeed I believe that no one is.

We are discovering for ourselves what works for us personally. I do not do what others tell me as that would be impossible, nobody does. There is not enough time in any life to do what everybody tells you. Governments in the past have tried to tell people what to do and of course they fail.

Everyones mileage will vary and what difference is it what the majority or the minority does? If a food makes you sick/well it makes you sick/well.

It is ridiculous that one size fits all diets could exist. Different climates, different food availability, different local customs enter into the process. I'd love to eat coconuts fresh off the tree like Goodsamaritan does or some of his exotic fish but the coconut trees all blew down in Canada a few weeks ago

[CitrusHigh]

Ty, I agree with your last comment about giving people platform of foods that are healthful for nearly everyone, but until yesterday I thought you were 100% anti dairy for everyone, all the time, and that it had no use whatsoever. And whether or not that is what you believe, it makes no difference if that is the message people are perceiving from you. Maybe it's just me who thought that way and I didn't dig deep enough, but I don't think that is the case.

And let it be stated, that I have been 3 years last nov. eating raw animal foods, and started out with some pretty mean and frequent detoxes and then gradually got to where I am today, not having been sick in a year, and all of my chronic maladies vanished. Health wouldn't really cross my mind, if I weren't always trying to learn and teach about it. Meaning that I'm so happy and able to focus on living my life instead of constantly trying to remedy this or that ailment. And I not only consume raw dairy, but I consider last summer's consumption of about a qt. of raw, heritage, grass fed cream each day, to have precipitated huge amounts of healing. In other words, I feel I truly thrive on raw dairy, or at least have experienced a lot of healing from it, because I can tolerate vastly more sugar and cooked foods than I could prior.

So this is one vote in favor of dairy, but I also believe everyone has their own optimal set of foods written in to their genome and I'm just grateful that dairy is included in mine!

[raw-al]

Ty, I agree with your last comment about giving people platform of foods that are healthful for nearly everyone, but until yesterday I thought you were 100% anti dairy for everyone, all the time, and that it had no use whatsoever. And whether or not that is what you believe, it makes no difference if that is the message people are perceiving from you. Maybe it's just me who thought that way and I didn't dig deep enough, but I don't think that is the case.

And let it be stated, that I have been 3 years last nov. eating raw animal foods, and started out with some pretty mean and frequent detoxes and then gradually got to where I am today, not having been sick in a year, and all of my chronic maladies vanished. Health wouldn't really cross my mind, if I weren't always trying to learn and teach about it. Meaning that I'm so happy and able to focus on living my life instead of constantly trying to remedy this or that ailment. And I not only consume raw dairy, but I consider last summer's consumption of about a qt. of raw, heritage, grass fed cream each day, to have precipitated huge amounts of healing. In other words, I feel I truly thrive on raw dairy, or at least have experienced a lot of healing from it, because I can tolerate vastly more sugar and cooked foods than I could prior.

So this is one vote in favor of dairy, but I also believe everyone has their own optimal set of foods written in to their genome and I'm just grateful that dairy is included in mine!

I also got that Tyler was of that opinion. I am glad to see the change.

CitrusHigh,
Wow a qt of cream a day. I can't imagine that much. I suspect I would be makin long distant calls on the porcelain telephone  even though I love cream. Must have been expensive.

I know I talk a lot about Ayurveda, as it is my background, but the beauty of the system is that it shortcuts the whole nonsense of figuring out what diet/foods work best. It does not differentiate between cooked or raw, it just suggests what will work best for you personally.

Unfortunately the people who teach Ayurveda today generally are cooked vege eaters so the impression is that Ay. is against meat. This is nonsense as the main/best books were written a couple of thousand years ago before the Buddhist influence started in earnest. There is lots of reference to a variety meats, and other things that would shock the hell out of most holier than thou dedicated Ay. veges.

The whole vege thing in India I think is economic. Grains are very cheap.

[PaleoPhil]

The only reason I got at William was because he had become far too fanatical on the subject of so-called  "evil carbs" and other utter nonsense re Creationism.

Surely you also recall the rows that you and he had over pemmican?

I mean, there are a few diehards on ZIOH or on some of the fruitarian diet forums, but, outside such forums, there is far less fanaticism than that which exists in the pro-raw-dairy movement s a whole.

I haven't counted the numbers of the factions all across the internet, but are you so sure that your own bad experience with raw dairy and strong anti-dairy views don't account for some of your feelings on this?

As a result, I am far less critical of ZC or fruitarians as there is no need for me to moderate their behaviour so much.

Of course, since we've only had a few fruitarians and near-fruitarians here and more raw dairy advocates. Our meat eating seems to keep away most fruitarians. We've also probably had fewer ZCers than dairy consumers, probably because there are other forums dedicated to ZC, VLC, LC and carnivory. Again, I was talking about the Internet as a whole rather than just this forum. I come across more fruit-fanatics and ZC zealots outside this forum than within it. I've seen more and larger forums dedicated to fruit-heavy diets and ZC/VLC than Weston Price and Aajonus. From what I've seen, the raw dairy advocates don't seem to have a good, highly-active forum dedicated to their views, which might explain why they appear at many other forums like this one. Perhaps some of our raw dairy fans could fill us in on any large and highly active raw dairy forums they know about?

By contrast, given past examples on other forums, if I didn't target the pro-raw-dairy fanatics when they started preaching, they would, sooner or later, start making it seem as though it was the "their fault" that  people had issues with raw dairy, or worse.

Yes, I have noticed that at times and it can be frustrating. I've also noticed here and at http://www.cavemanforum.com and Paleofood that there are some Paleo dieters with a knee-jerk tendency to simply dismiss dairy out of hand as "not Paleo" instead of thinking it through and engaging in rational discussion with the dairy advocates. It's somewhat understandable for people who are new to Paleo to dismiss dairy as regards their own diets, because they haven't had time to investigate everything thoroughly and the Cordain and Audette lists that completely prohibit dairy can be a quick-and-dirty shortcut to get started, but when those lists are used to stifle discussion I imagine that can get frustrating for the dairy advocates. Those lists can also go wrong if instead of butter, someone eats lots of canola oil (Cordain later recanted that recommendation).

You're just getting back at me because I had previously, way back when, criticised your own fanatical "treatises" on Weston-Price among several other issues.

LOL Utter laughable nonsense. I've never been a fanatic follower of Weston Price as I explained then and I was actually attacked by one of his followers at Paleofood (which I seem to recall pointing out to you before) and highly criticized by KGH for making comments that were too anti-dairy in his view, as you know. I have also explained multiple times in the past that I joined this forum in part because it did not officially advocate dairy products. This goes to show that your anti-dairy fanaticism is so extreme you even attack someone as a WP fanatic who doesn't drink any milk, isn't a devotee of Weston Price or the WAPF, and joined in part because this forum doesn't advocate dairy products, merely because I didn't dismiss everything he wrote out of hand and despite the fact that you yourself have cited him where his views agreed with yours--the height of hypocrisy. I suppose that makes your agreements with him "fanatical treatises" as well, by your bogus standards. My guess is that most people here, not just raw-al, CitrusHigh and myself, recognize that your anti-dairy rants tend to be way over-the-top. Despite my having had some bad experiences with raw dairy advocates in the past, you're making them seem more and more reasonable by comparison to your behavior.

Whatever the case, the very fact that pro-raw-dairy drinkers get worked up by my own stance re raw dairy, is a direct sign of their own fanaticism.

That would be more convincing if you didn't react to their posts with far more fanatical responses.

I have always stated that I am well aware that some do thrive on raw dairy, so no one can accuse me of suggesting it's always a deadly poison for everyone. Plus, the only reason why I often recommend against raw dairy is that it is so often cited by rawists as causing problems, particularly for those with serious health-problems(unsurprising, really, as rates of allergies and the like often increase in tandem with ill-health).

Now that's a much more reasonable comment. I don't disagree with that and I think you would be more persuasive if you used more of that tone.

even if eating raw, fermented, room temperature, dairy fat only etc...are indeed just "less worse" and all lead at least on some level to a type of deficiency or problem..the thing is why would that matter if they could not meet their goals otherwise in the present, or could not even overcome their health issues to live that far in the future or just find that they just noticeably do better that way and at any moment can do something else if necessary.

Right, and I think raw dairy, particularly raw dairy fats, might be an OK substitute for some who for whatever reason won't or can't eat raw marrow or suet or other animal body fats. Raw dairy fats tend to be much more acceptable to modern Western people and it could potentially be a stepping stone to a more RPD-type diet.

Ty, I agree with your last comment about giving people platform of foods that are healthful for nearly everyone, but until yesterday I thought you were 100% anti dairy for everyone, all the time, and that it had no use whatsoever. And whether or not that is what you believe, it makes no difference if that is the message people are perceiving from you.

Right, his anti-dairy posts are often so over-the-top that they give the impression that he's even more anti-dairy than he is.

[TylerDurden]

To use your expression b*llsh#t.

We are not in the business of telling anyone how to live/eat. We are discussing our experience. We are incapable of giving out the last word in diet indeed I believe that no one is.

That is pure, utter drivel, of course. First of all, like KD said, this is a rawpaleoforum, so, naturally, most people come here because their health failed dismally on other diets, whether SAD diets or raw-dairy-filled diets like Weston-Price. So it is , anyway, perfectly natural for us to mention the experiences that most of us have. Were we only to speak of our own individual experiences, we would be, in most cases,  short-changing newbies and make their dietary experiments more difficult and more lengthy, not less.

Secondly, no one is actually forcing anyone to do anything. After all, we are all separated by eletronic wires, and no one can therefore force us to do anything. All we offer is advice.

[TylerDurden]

I also got that Tyler was of that opinion. I am glad to see the change.

I never changed, though. Of course, people usually prefer to see what they want to see , rather than what actually happened.

[TylerDurden]

Surely you also recall the rows that you and he had over pemmican?

  Again, the only reason why I got at William, over that issue, was because he ranted constantly about pemmican, rudely attacked  others who had negative experiences re pemmican. If he had seen sense, he could have been like Lex and just mentioned pemmican occasionally in the Journals section or the hot topics forum. But he was so fanatical about pemmican that he went way over the top, and had to be stopped.

I haven't counted the numbers of the factions all across the internet, but are you so sure that your own bad experience with raw dairy and strong anti-dairy views don't account for some of your feelings on this?

Of course not. After all, I encountered such frequent, fanatical pro-raw-dairy views online, long before I had even made up my mind about raw dairy. Indeed, it was that very fanaticism of pro-raw-dairy-advocates on other forums  that got me to waste another 6 months of trying raw dairy before  finally giving it up.

Of course, since we've only had a few fruitarians and near-fruitarians here and more raw dairy advocates. Our meat eating seems to keep away most fruitarians. We've also probably had fewer ZCers than dairy consumers, probably because there are other forums dedicated to ZC, VLC, LC and carnivory. Again, I was talking about the Internet as a whole rather than just this forum. I come across more fruit-fanatics and ZC zealots outside this forum than within it. I've seen more and larger forums dedicated to fruit-heavy diets and ZC/VLC than Weston Price and Aajonus. From what I've seen, the raw dairy advocates don't seem to have a good, highly-active forum dedicated to their views, which might explain why they appear at many other forums like this one. Perhaps some of our raw dairy fans could fill us in on any large and highly active raw dairy forums they know about?

I was, of course, not referring to this forum, but to the Internet in general. My experience was the opposite - even the raw vegans were not as virulent as the raw-dairy-advocates,  if raw vegan members attacked the consumption of certain fruits, say.

Yes, I have noticed that at times and it can be frustrating. I've also noticed here and at http://www.cavemanforum.com and Paleofood that there are some Paleo dieters with a knee-jerk tendency to simply dismiss dairy out of hand as "not Paleo" instead of thinking it through and engaging in rational discussion with the dairy advocates. It's somewhat understandable for people who are new to Paleo to dismiss dairy as regards their own diets, because they haven't had time to investigate everything thoroughly and the Cordain and Audette lists that completely prohibit dairy can be a quick-and-dirty shortcut to get started, but when those lists are used to stifle discussion I imagine that can get frustrating for the dairy advocates. Those lists can also go wrong if instead of butter, someone eats lots of canola oil (Cordain later recanted that recommendation).

  Not true at all. Cordain and Audette have put forward several different versions of their diet, such as "lite" versions filled with some dairy and grains for those who don't want to go fully palaeo for whatever reason.

LOL Utter laughable nonsense. I've never been a fanatic follower of Weston Price as I explained then and I was actually attacked by one of his followers at Paleofood (which I seem to recall pointing out to you before) and highly criticized by KGH for making comments that were too anti-dairy in his view, as you know. I have also explained multiple times in the past that I joined this forum in part because it did not officially advocate dairy products. This goes to show that your anti-dairy fanaticism is so extreme you even attack someone as a WP fanatic who doesn't drink any milk, isn't a devotee of Weston Price or the WAPF, and joined in part because this forum doesn't advocate dairy products, merely because I didn't dismiss everything he wrote out of hand and despite the fact that you yourself have cited him where his views agreed with yours--the height of hypocrisy. I suppose that makes your agreements with him "fanatical treatises" as well, by your bogus standards. My guess is that most people here, not just raw-al, CitrusHigh and myself, recognize that your anti-dairy rants tend to be way over-the-top. Despite my having had some bad experiences with raw dairy advocates in the past, you're making them seem more and more reasonable by comparison to your behavior.

Utterly ridiculous. Your past pro-WP rants were self-evidently in favour of the Noble Savage theory and similiar WP nonsense. Sure, you did, afterwards, make a big play about how, supposedly, you were not a WP-diehard, but these were just foolish equivocations, as a form of damage-limitation. And, as regards me supporting some of WP's points, that is by no means hypocritical:- first of all, one of my observations in life has always been that no one can possibly be 100 percent correct or 100 percent wrong.  Secondly, I have supported those specific points WP made which fit in with what other, more solid scientists or explorers have also stated. That is only logical since many of WP's points are vague and dodgy in the extreme.

That would be more convincing if you didn't react to their posts with far more fanatical responses.

I only react to them. I don't usually go on the warpath, unlike the pro-raw-dairy-advocates, unless some transgression has occurred re untruths or whatever.

[PaleoPhil]

 Again, the only reason why I got at William, over that issue, was because he ranted constantly about pemmican, rudely attacked  others who had negative experiences re pemmican. If he had seen sense, he could have been like Lex and just mentioned pemmican occasionally in the Journals section or the hot topics forum. But he was so fanatical about pemmican that he went way over the top, and had to be stopped.

Right, that was my point. He was fanatical about pemmican. Raw dairy isn't the only food that people get fanatical about.

I was, of course, not referring to this forum, but to the Internet in general. My experience was the opposite - even the raw vegans were not as virulent as the raw-dairy-advocates,  if raw vegan members attacked the consumption of certain fruits, say.

What are you referring to here, when a raw vegan forum member criticized a certain fruit and the other members attacked the critic, but did so less virulently than raw dairy advocates? There are more virulent scenarios than that at raw vegan forums, such as when someone criticizes the category of sweet fruits, or worse, fruits in general or reports poor results from following a fruit-heavy raw vegan diet, or still worse advocates meat. Are you not familiar with DurianRider and 30BAD?

 Not true at all. Cordain and Audette have put forward several different versions of their diet, such as "lite" versions filled with some dairy and grains for those who don't want to go fully palaeo for whatever reason.

I think you mean the "open meals" that Cordain allowed in "Level I" and "Level II" of his diet and allowances that Audette makes for those who cannot stick to Neanderthin 100 percent and don't get significant health problems from small amounts of his "forbidden foods." Whereas I was referring to Cordain's list of "Foods You Should Avoid" in the 2002 edition of The Paleo Diet and Audette's list of "Forbidden Foods" in the 1999 edition of Neanderthin. At any rate you missed my point. Some people focus on Cordain's and Audette's lists of allowed and prohibited foods, taking them as absolute gospel and ignoring the language about allowances. I was talking about those Paleo dieters who do that, not Cordain and Audette themselves. I can't count the number of times I've seen a question or positive statement about dairy receive a quick dismissal of "Dairy is not Paleo" from someone who has read the writings of Cordain or Audette or other Paleo diet advocates. I wasn't saying that I blame Cordain or Audette for that.

Utterly ridiculous. Your past pro-WP rants were self-evidently in favour of the Noble Savage theory and similiar WP nonsense.

Pure fabrication. That was only in your imaginings and in your clumsy attempts to twist my posts to fit your stupid straw men, and you've tried this with others who disagreed with you. Your repetition of such slanders doesn't make them true.

Sure, you did, afterwards, make a big play about how, supposedly, you were not a WP-diehard, but these were just foolish equivocations, as a form of damage-limitation.

That's what you would clearly like people to believe, but I was quite obviously not a WP diehard going back to PaleoFood, before I even joined this forum. As I mentioned, I was criticized by a WP diehard at PaleoFood. I have always considered WP's views to be excessively positive about raw dairy and whole rye bread and I disagree with him on other points and emphases. Your attempts to discredit everyone who doesn't agree with your extreme views on WP and dairy as some sort of WP or AV diehard are transparently obvious.

And, as regards me supporting some of WP's points, that is by no means hypocritical:

Of course it is. You savage anyone who cites anything by WP that doesn't support your views, usually providing no clarification that you think that WP is right about certain other things, but apparently see no contradiction in your own citations of his work when it supports your points.

first of all, one of my observations in life has always been that no one can possibly be 100 percent correct or 100 percent wrong.

You couldn't tell that by the way you respond to posts that don't tow your party line. All I'm suggesting is to lighten up a little and I hope your acknowledgment of the fact that no one is 100% correct will suggest to you the same.

many of WP's points are vague and dodgy in the extreme.

Yet you nonetheless haven't demonstrated a problem with citing him without caveat when it suits your purposes.

I only react to them. I don't usually go on the warpath, unlike the pro-raw-dairy-advocates, unless some transgression has occurred re untruths or whatever.

Whatever you call it, you seem to carry it too far at times, including in this thread, and I'm not the only one who has noticed that. At least you've helped me to see that I was probably overly intolerant of dairy advocacy myself in the past, in part due to my being turned off by the WAPF fanaticism. That's why the claim that I'm a WP fanatic is so hilarious. Some in the pro-dairy crowd have tried to paint me as a pro-Cordain/Paleo fanatic with a knee-jerk anti-dairy zealotry. You can't both be right and the truth is that I'm neither, and between the two I've been closer to pro-Paleo zealotry than pro-dairy/WP zealotry, especially in the past.

I was turned off by the WAPF fanaticism but now I have seen the other extreme and it is even more distasteful. I suppose one benefit of your anti-dairy fanaticism is that it makes my views about dairy look extremely reasonable and moderate in comparison. So I thank you for that.

[TylerDurden]

Right, that was my point. He was fanatical about pemmican. Raw dairy isn't the only food that people get fanatical about.

Citing one tiny, lone example does NOT give any remote credence to the notion that people get just as fanatical about raw dairy as with other foods. *sigh*

What are you referring to here, when a raw vegan forum member criticized a certain fruit and the other members attacked the critic, but did so less virulently than raw dairy advocates? There are more virulent scenarios than that at raw vegan forums, such as when someone criticizes the category of sweet fruits, or worse, fruits in general or reports poor results from following a fruit-heavy raw vegan diet, or still worse advocates meat. Are you not familiar with DurianRider and 30BAD?

Pure, deliberately vague generalisations. The fact is that raw-dairy-advocates attack anybody who makes even the slightest criticism of raw dairy. At best, I have come  across a few such advocates who state the outrageous lie that "absolutely anyone can handle raw butter", but even that is not terribly common.

I think you mean the "open meals" that Cordain allowed in "Level I" and "Level II" of his diet and allowances that Audette makes for those who cannot stick to Neanderthin 100 percent and don't get significant health problems from small amounts of his "forbidden foods." Whereas I was referring to Cordain's list of "Foods You Should Avoid" in the 2002 edition of The Paleo Diet and Audette's list of "Forbidden Foods" in the 1999 edition of Neanderthin. At any rate you missed my point. Some people focus on Cordain's and Audette's lists of allowed and prohibited foods, taking them as absolute gospel and ignoring the language about allowances. I was talking about those Paleo dieters who do that, not Cordain and Audette themselves. I can't count the number of times I've seen a question or positive statement about dairy receive a quick dismissal of "Dairy is not Paleo" from someone who has read the writings of Cordain or Audette or other Paleo diet advocates. I wasn't saying that I blame Cordain or Audette for that.

  Well, at least you very grudgingly admit that neither Cordain nor Audette were strict re their interpretations and allowed compromises of various sorts. As for the very few who state things like "dairy is not palaeo", in almost all cases, such people are talking about their own or others' experiences re not doing too well on dairy, so their statements are perfectly valid.

Pure fabrication. That was only in your imaginings and in your clumsy attempts to twist my posts to fit your stupid straw men, and you've tried this with others who disagreed with you. Your repetition of such slanders doesn't make them true.

I'm afraid that since you are not a Global Moderator, you do not have the opportunity to delete your's or others' posts, so any steadfast perusal of your past posts shows the exact opposite of what you are pretending to claim. To slightly misquote Martin Luther:- "Hier stehst du! Du kannst nicht anders!"

That's what you would clearly like people to believe, but I was quite obviously not a WP diehard going back to PaleoFood, before I even joined this forum. As I mentioned, I was criticized by a WP diehard at PaleoFood. I have always considered WP's views to be excessively positive about raw dairy and whole rye bread and I disagree with him on other points and emphases. Your attempts to discredit everyone who doesn't agree with your extreme views on WP and dairy as some sort of WP or AV diehard are transparently obvious.

B*llsh*t, and more equivocation. Besides, another obvious explanation exists:- you just liked to argue for the sake of arguing so chose a pro-WP argument just in order to play devil's advocate. Childish.

Of course it is. You savage anyone who cites anything by WP that doesn't support your views, usually providing no clarification that you think that WP is right about certain other things, but apparently see no contradiction in your own citations of his work when it supports your points.

B*llsh*t again. Like I said before, I quote WP's points mainly only when they are corroborated by other scientists or explorers. If other more eminent people agree with him, that's fine, otherwise not really.

You couldn't tell that by the way you respond to posts that don't tow your party line. All I'm suggesting is to lighten up a little and I hope your acknowledgment of the fact that no one is 100% correct will suggest to you the same.

Childish, dishonest drivel, since I have always made a point of making it clear that it is possible to adapt to raw dairy.

Yet you nonetheless haven't demonstrated a problem with citing him without caveat when it suits your purposes.

Drivel again, since I make it a point to cite other, more reliable sources that agree with him, and have made it clear when some of hs utterances did not agree with other sources.

Whatever you call it, you seem to carry it too far at times, including in this thread, and I'm not the only one who has noticed that. At least you've helped me to see that I was probably overly intolerant of dairy advocacy myself in the past, in part due to my being turned off by the WAPF fanaticism. That's why the claim that I'm a WP fanatic is so hilarious. Some in the pro-dairy crowd have tried to paint me as a pro-Cordain/Paleo fanatic with a knee-jerk anti-dairy zealotry. You can't both be right and the truth is that I'm neither, and between the two I've been closer to pro-Paleo zealotry than pro-dairy/WP zealotry, especially in the past.

I was turned off by the WAPF fanaticism but now I have seen the other extreme and it is even more distasteful. I suppose one benefit of your anti-dairy fanaticism is that it makes my views about dairy look extremely reasonable and moderate in comparison. So I thank you for that.

Drivel, as usual. You really have a dishonest urge to rewrite your history as such. Like I said, you can't delete your past posts, so anyone who carefully checks them one by one  will perceive your lies. As for me, what I stated was quite true. I usually only react to the more violent, fanatical pro-raw-dairy-advocates. Otherwise, I restrict myself to just pointing out how many RVAFers react badly to raw dairy and the like.

[PaleoPhil]

Citing one tiny, lone example does NOT give any remote credence to the notion that people get just as fanatical about raw dairy as with other foods. *sigh*

:head smack: How many times do I have to state that I'm not talking about just this forum? Several people at ZIOH went on pemmican-heavy or pemmican-only kicks (and pemmican was just one example of several foods that I mentioned that people tend to get emotional, obsessed or fanatical about):

Delfuego seemed to be convinced that pemmican was the world's best food and had his whole family on a pemmican-only diet for quite a while. He seemed to think that they would live on little more than pemmican and water indefinitely until he discovered that they could handle steaks too.

A former female member of ZIOH called pemmican "pemmi-crack" (as in an addictive substance) and praised it endlessly as super yummy and healthy despite cooking it very thoroughly.

Mel at ZIOH was so obsessed with pemmican that he stayed on a pemmican-only diet until he gave himself a severe folic acid deficiency and symptoms like...

> folic acid deficiency anemia (low hemoglobin and folic acid levels)
> scurvy-like red splotches and patches (due to blood) on the thighs and behind the knees (folic acid deficiency can reduce the absorption of vitamin C)
> sore and swollen knees difficult to bend
> leg pains and legs seizing up
> dizziness
> internal bleeding
> worsening of his chronic diarrhea

Yet despite all these symptoms he continued to eat a pemmican-only diet and tried to blame his symptoms on "standing wrong" until he had to go to the emerency room and get intravenous folic acid, vitamin C and vitamin K. Luckily he finally put aside the pemmican, but even now it seems he attributes the problems while on pemmican solely to his chronic diarrhea and says that someone who doesn't have diarrhea should be able to subsist fine on pemmican.

Charles tried pemmican-only but fared poorly. He said he developed leg soreness, low energy and dehydration. Luckily, he quit the pemmican-only diet but blamed the problems solely on dehydration and scoffed at the possibility of scurvy contributing to Mel's problems and agreed with Mel that Mel's problems were due entirely to Mel's chronic diarrhea.

And over at Paleofood William still occasionally raves about pemmican.

Are you not familiar with DurianRider and 30BAD?

Pure, deliberately vague generalisations.

If you say that then you must not be very familiar with them, because anyone who says anything they don't like quickly becomes the object of unpleasant remarks. If you did know much about them then you would have witnessed it happening to someone by now. DurianRider has even trolled this forum at times, according to the moderators, as I recall.

Well, at least you very grudgingly admit that neither Cordain nor Audette were strict re their interpretations and allowed compromises of various sorts.

The only grudgingness is in your elaborate imagination. You seem to assume the worst of people and then seek to prove it.

"If you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." --David Swift, director

Strictness is also a relative term. Some think that Cordain and Audette were too strict for putting dairy fats on their lists of forbidden foods and some think they weren't strict enough in allowing certain things.

As for the very few who state things like "dairy is not palaeo", in almost all cases, such people are talking about their own or others' experiences re not doing too well on dairy, so their statements are perfectly valid.

Did you become the mindreader and spokesperson of every Paleo dieter who has ever dismissed discussion with a "dairy is not Paleo" type quip? This smacks of defensiveness. And "perfectly"? That's a good example of the excessiveness of your language on the dairy topic.
 

I'm afraid that since you are not a Global Moderator, you do not have the opportunity to delete your's or others' posts, so any steadfast perusal of your past posts shows the exact opposite of what you are pretending to claim. To slightly misquote Martin Luther:- "Hier stehst du! Du kannst nicht anders!"

Balderdash! Some citations or positive comments about Weston Price's work do not fanaticism make. Weston Price exaggerated and you far outdo him in that regard. You can hardly claim that I'm a WP fanatic with any honesty when you already grudgingly admitted that I disagree with him 20% of the time.

Are you familiar with Stephan Guyenet's blog? Stephan draws more heavily on WP than I do. If I'm a WP fanatic, then I suppose that makes Stephan a superfanatic? LOL

B*llsh*t, and more equivocation.

Meaningless blather as usual.

Besides, another obvious explanation exists:- you just liked to argue for the sake of arguing so chose a pro-WP argument just in order to play devil's advocate. Childish.

Heheh, well, you do bring out some of the devil in me, but then that would mean I'm not really a WP fanatic after all despite your ridiculous claims.

B*llsh*t again.

The king of bullshit flatters me. I'm really nowhere near as practiced in the art as you, but thanks anyway.

Like I said before, I quote WP's points mainly only when they are corroborated by other scientists or explorers. If other more eminent people agree with him, that's fine, otherwise not really.

If you only quote WP when more eminent people agree with him and you despise him so, then why bother quoting him at all? Why not just quote the more eminent folk? Surely your quoting of him shows that you believe he provided at least some interesting evidence or made some salient points?

Childish, dishonest drivel, since I have always made a point of making it clear that it is possible to adapt to raw dairy.

If you believe that then why do you give raw dairy advocates such a hard time?

Drivel again, since I make it a point to cite other, more reliable sources that agree with him, and have made it clear when some of hs utterances did not agree with other sources.

See above.

Your outrage against WP and his devotees would be more convincing if you didn't use him to suit your own purposes.

You really have a dishonest urge to rewrite your history as such.

In your dictionary, "dishonest" means "doesn't agree with Tyler Durden."

Like I said, you can't delete your past posts, so anyone who carefully checks them one by one  will perceive your lies.

I doubt that many perceive them in the distorted way you do, if any.

As for me, what I stated was quite true. I usually only react to the more violent, fanatical pro-raw-dairy-advocates. Otherwise, I restrict myself to just pointing out how many RVAFers react badly to raw dairy and the like.

I'll let raw-al, Citrushigh, KD and others be the judge of that. If they think you've been completely reasonable then I'll accept that.

BTW, I asked my best friend if she had ever heard me mention Weston Price and she said "Who?" Case closed. Some fanatic.

[KD]

TD does seem to give more credence to a possible universe of which dairies usefulness exists than some..after some prying anyway. On top of that there is personal bias but its true that dairy proponents will have their own biases and viewpoints on various symptoms and so forth. Based on this sites origins as and as a balance opposed to a Primal forum (although which there isn't a similar one to RPF) it seems OK to me that dairy should have a guilty until proven innocent kind of status..but even accepting that often times i'm certainly like "woah..."

I can't say reasonable is the first word that comes to mind....
Although I can't say I am entirely reasonable on this or other issues either. I mean I have my own few hot-button issues but other than that I don't really comment about someone praising say.. stored coconut products even though I think these are crap foods. I don't avoid 'aisle 3' because of fear of 'the plague'. I just avoid eating them and if I eat them and I do so thinking they are second rate foods. Unless someone has some kind of complaint that I can direct towards what they are eating or is just vehemently arguing they have some magic potion then there is really no foul by me.

I also have my own ideas of why people might do poorly on specific types of dairy foods, but I generally don't mention what those are for the same reason that people arn't looking for that information usually and also other than my own experiences and others teachings I can't say for sure. I know for myself that I seem to do better with dairy fats than strictly frozen marrow and/or suet which I will do from time to time. Possibly if I wasn't doing those animal fats (due to them being frozen or some other idea) maybe I similarly would be doing not as well but for me butter actually ranks last taste-wise. I spent quite a few years without dairy and on raw carbs and I find that dairy-or-not fats are the way to go at least in my present situation. So that brings me back to the above comparison where dairy foods are top functioning and not chosen for other reasons or preferences. Its important to be informed on all sides of things, and certainly if there were apparent problems that outweighed benefits I'd have plenty of other foods to eat that I prefer anyway. Also I believe if I had tried a 'milk and meat' diet before (and likely now still) I would have been off the diet along time ago with terrible problems...so basically that is where I am coming from regarding the OP issue.

Other than what I already said with paleo 'trumps' type arguments, the main area of concern is in the Welcoming Forum where often people are just listing what they are doing. These folks obviously are already interested in raw and paleo concepts and probably aware of paleo definitions and yet have to be inundated with such flak even when they aren't reporting any kind of problems or symptoms or desire for such information. All this does is bring 'fanatics' and arguments into that forum and likely push people away.

I think it was Yuri (rawlion) IICR that said even the dead can digest butter. heh heh. good times. I wouldn't say he is a fanatic by any means...

[PaleoPhil]

TD does seem to give more credence to a possible universe of which dairies usefulness exists than some..after some prying anyway.

Yes, grudgingly.

Based on this sites origins as and as a balance opposed to a Primal forum (although which there isn't a similar one to RPF) it seems OK to me that dairy should have a guilty until proven innocent kind of status..

I argued for a guilty until proven innocent status myself and took a shellacking for it from someone outside the forum. However, since as you say there isn't a really active Primal forum (there is Primal Friends and Vinny Pinto's forum, but they are much less active than this one) to give a good home to raw dairy lovers, I can understand some of them coming here. Plus there are Primal and raw WAPF sections in this forum, so it seems like they deserve a little more slack than what TD was giving early on in this thread.

but even accepting that often times i'm certainly like "woah..."

I can't say reasonable is the first word that comes to mind....

Yup

Other than what I already said with paleo 'trumps' type arguments, the main area of concern is in the Welcoming Forum where often people are just listing what they are doing. These folks obviously are already interested in raw and paleo concepts and probably aware of paleo definitions and yet have to be inundated with such flak even when they arn't reporting any kind of problems or symptoms or desire for such information. All this does is bring 'fanatics' and arguments into that forum and likely push people away.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[TylerDurden]

And over at Paleofood William still occasionally raves about pemmican.http://glycob.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/7/16R.abstract

Again, just because a tiny few like William are overly hysterical does not mean all others in the same community are fanatical - I mean Lex and others are far more typical. By contrast, when I suggested, years ago, on other forums, that raw dairy might be a problem, I got shouted down. The worst I got from raw vegan forums was being banned if I mentioned meats, but otherwise they were fine, and those who merely frowned on meat and preferred veg were fine. Of course, my raw vegan phase happened over a decade ago, so maybe there has been a sudden rise in fanaticism since, but I doubt it.

While there are clearly other reasons for the fanaticism of raw-dairy drinkers, one other obvious reason comes to mind. Raw dairy, unlike raw veg or raw meats, is openly banned in many US states etc., so that raw dairy consumers tend to react violently about any criticism of raw dairy re ill-effects, since the government health-authorities themselves  constantly go on about the dangers of raw dairy.

If you say that then you must not be very familiar with them, because anyone who says anything they don't like quickly becomes the object of unpleasant remarks. If you did know much about them then you would have witnessed it happening to someone by now. DurianRider has even trolled this forum at times, according to the moderators, as I recall.

Citing lone examples such as 1 or 2 trolling attempts by one person like DR does not make an entire community seem fanatical. Anyway, my own raw vegan experiences occurred over a decade ago, involving yahoo groups etc.

The only grudgingness is in your elaborate imagination. You seem to assume the worst of people and then seek to prove it.

"If you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." --David Swift, director

Strictness is also a relative term. Some think that Cordain and Audette were too strict for putting dairy fats on their lists of forbidden foods and some think they weren't strict enough in allowing certain things.

Equivocation as usual. The fact is that both Cordain and Audette were not strict and catered to all needs, by offering "paleo-lite" and "palaeo-hardcore", as well as a midway approach.

Did you become the mindreader and spokesperson of every Paleo dieter who has ever dismissed discussion with a "dairy is not Paleo" type quip? This smacks of defensiveness. And "perfectly"? That's a good example of the excessiveness of your language on the dairy topic.

Childish, since the use of that word was clearly not meant in an absolute sense. I simply meant that there are other reasons why people might say "dairy is not palaeo", other than simple dogma. Besides, I have not come across that type of argument that often on paleo forums. Paleofood, for example, as a general whole,tends to accept that some members like to use dairy.
 

Balderdash! Some citations or positive comments about Weston Price's work do not fanaticism make. Weston Price exaggerated and you far outdo him in that regard. You can hardly claim that I'm a WP fanatic with any honesty when you already grudgingly admitted that I disagree with him 20% of the time.

A later, calculated change of tune on your part  does not excuse prior fanaticism.

Are you familiar with Stephan Guyenet's blog? Stephan draws more heavily on WP than I do. If I'm a WP fanatic, then I suppose that makes Stephan a superfanatic? LOL

There are degrees in everything. So, maybe you are the equivalent of Jim Bakker to Guyenet's Reverend Jim Jones?

Heheh, well, you do bring out some of the devil in me, but then that would mean I'm not really a WP fanatic after all despite your ridiculous claims.

Not at all. After all, there are some people who constantly change their views but who always instinctively take a fanatical extreme stance in each case.

If you only quote WP when more eminent people agree with him and you despise him so, then why bother quoting him at all? Why not just quote the more eminent folk? Surely your quoting of him shows that you believe he provided at least some interesting evidence or made some salient points?

I quote WP because the more reliable sources are not as highly visible as WP. Many of the sources don't even talk about diet, except in passing.

If you believe that then why do you give raw dairy advocates such a hard time?

I don't, though. So far, I only react when a raw dairy fanatic goes over the top. Otherwise, I am happy to live and let live. If I really were so fanatical, I would not have been the one to insist on starting(and keeping) the primal diet forum, among other raw-dairy-related forums.

Your outrage against WP and his devotees would be more convincing if you didn't use him to suit your own purposes.

I attack WP where he is flawed, but happily defend him when he's right. When WP does not have any solid evidence to back his claims, then I have a right to criticise him.

In your dictionary, "dishonest" means "doesn't agree with Tyler Durden."

No, it means not using dodgy tactics to try to win an argument.

I doubt that many perceive them in the distorted way you do, if any.

Trust me, some others do.....

I'll let raw-al, Citrushigh, KD and others be the judge of that. If they think you've been completely reasonable then I'll accept that.

BTW, I asked my best friend if she had ever heard me mention Weston Price and she said "Who?" Case closed. Some fanatic.

I don't really see those as wholly unbiased icons of moral rectitude. As for friends(and relatives for that matter), they are routinely notorious for having a mental "blind-spot" where they are unable to see the flaws of those closest to them, whereas others further away can...

Couldn't we get back to the subject of the thread re what dangers various raw dairy products provide? This sniping back and forth is so boring...

[PaleoPhil]

After all, there are some people who constantly change their views but who always instinctively take a fanatical extreme stance in each case.

Generally quite the opposite. After all, the definition of a fanatic is "one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." (Winston Churchill, http://www.famousquotesandauthors.com/topics/creating_positive_change_quotes.html)

If I've changed my mind as you claim, then that suggests that your accusation that I'm a fanatic is erroneous. And on that note, I give up, because I'm bored of this.

Couldn't we get back to the subject of the thread re what dangers various raw dairy products provide? This sniping back and forth is so boring...

Good, I'm glad you agree, though I notice you couldn't help making many more snipes before claiming to be bored of it. LOL I hope this means you won't be sniping at raw Al, CitrusHigh or KD either.

Wow. I had no idea dairy caused all these problems! And to think of the amount of pasteurized milk that is consumed by my family alone and extrapolating that is unfathomable to think of all the people completely unaware.

TD's experience and mine and eveheart's have been poor with dairy, whereas others have reported positive experiences. You might have a completely different experience than Tyler's. Some report that clarified butter (aka ghee) is easier to tolerate, though I found that I didn't handle it well. Others report that they thrive on the fermented dairy products you mentioned. The only way to find out for sure how you handle dairy is to test it for yourself, such as with elimination for 4 weeks or so followed by a challenge. If you can eat marrow, suet, egg yolks and other animal fats, then there's probably no need to eat dairy. Some people don't want to eat animal body fats, in which case dairy fats might be an acceptable substitute, depending on the individual.

[TylerDurden]

Being able to change one's mind is, of course, well within a  fanatic's capability, given the many fanatics in Earth's history who have fully switched sides when it was convenient etc. :-
Here's the official version, which says nothing of  fanaticism being defined by belief in just 1 approach:-
"fanaticism
an extreme and uncritical zeal or enthusiasm, as in religion or politics. — fanatic, n., adj. — fanatical, adj.
See also: Attitudes
the character, spirit, or conduct of a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics. — fanatic, n."

[eveheart]

"fanaticism. an extreme and uncritical zeal or enthusiasm, as in religion or politics....

Getting right down to definitions, I have decided that it is not fanaticism that I abhor, but the aggressive, judgmental, disposition to dominate others. That is to say, when the uncritical zeal of the fanatic turns to proselytizing, I find that irritating, even when the proselytism is not directed to me.

[PaleoPhil]

Being able to change one's mind is, of course, well within a  fanatic's capability, given the many fanatics in Earth's history who have fully switched sides when it was convenient etc. :-
Here's the official version, which says nothing of  fanaticism being defined by belief in just 1 approach:-
"fanaticism
an extreme and uncritical zeal or enthusiasm, as in religion or politics. — fanatic, n., adj. — fanatical, adj.
See also: Attitudes
the character, spirit, or conduct of a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics. — fanatic, n."

I think you may be thinking of "demagogue", but either way I'm not interested in debating the word definition. I am surprised that you're disagreeing with Churchill on this one, though. I would have guessed you to be a Churchill fan.

[PaleoPhil]

Getting right down to definitions, I have decided that it is not fanaticism that I abhor, but the aggressive, judgmental, disposition to dominate others. That is to say, when the uncritical zeal of the fanatic turns to proselytizing, I find that irritating, even when the proselytism is not directed to me.

Yes, good point. Fanatics that keep to themselves don't bother anyone else. It's the proselytizers who have the potential to annoy.

I think some diet forum posters may proselytize untintentionally, via lazy wording. This basic scenario is pretty common on dietary forums:

Person A: "I'm really thriving on raw milk. Raw milk is the key to good health."
Person B: "I don't thrive on raw milk. It's not the key to my good health."
Person A: "I was talking about me rather than everyone." [Except person A didn't originally specify this. A lot of aggravation could probably be avoided if everyone was careful to specify when they're talking just about their own experience, as in "Raw milk is the key to my good health." The brief writing style of Instant messaging, cell phone texting, Twitter and Blackberries seems to be making this problem worse.]

[TylerDurden]

I think you may be thinking of "demagogue", but either way I'm not interested in debating the word definition. I am surprised that you're disagreeing with Churchill on this one, though. I would have guessed you to be a Churchill fan.

I know, that was clever to assume that, being English, I might be a Churchill fan. Unfortunately, I happen to be a history buff and happen to be well aware that Churchill was not as wonderful as he tried to seem to be. This incompetent was directly responsible for the disastrous Gallipoli campaign and his foul-up re the Gold Standard directly led to the General Strike of 1926.If not for the US...

[PaleoPhil]

I know, that was clever to assume that, being English, I might be a Churchill fan.

Your assumption that I assumed it just because you're English is wrong. Believe it or not, it is possible to be a fan of Churchill's without being English. [I have relatives who are fans of his (they even recommended that I read a book about him). It's somewhat surprising because they are also proud of their Irish roots and of the role that their ancestors played in the Irish struggle for Independence and they are no fans of the Black and Tans. I happen to be a fan of that quote and other Churchill quotes, though I don't know enough myself to determine whether I would be a fan of his overall--I suspect not. I do appreciate his role in WWII, though not his support of empire and his disaster in Gallipoli.] I was also thinking of your politics, interests, tastes and the aggressive, biting style you've displayed on this forum. I enjoy history and know an eensy weensy bit about Churchill and English history, so I saw some possible similarities, though I of course wasn't certain, which is why I said "guessed" rather than "assumed". Did you assume that because I'm an American I must know nothing about history, British or otherwise and would only know that Churchill was British? Unfortunately, many Americans do fit the stereotype of the "ignorant American" uninterested in world history or affairs, but I try not to do that.

Unfortunately, I happen to be a history buff and happen to be well aware that Churchill was not as wonderful as he tried to seem to be.

Not surprising. Few politicians are. I knew that you are a history buff and that Churchill was also, and this was another connection I noticed. So sorry if my guess offended you. It wasn't meant to. I didn't know that you despised him so.

This incompetent was directly responsible for the disastrous Gallipoli campaign and his foul-up re the Gold Standard directly led to the General Strike of 1926.If not for the US...

I was aware of the Gallipoli disaster. I don't know a lot about it, but when I first read about it did surprise me that it didn't destroy his career. I forget how he revived his career. I remember that my grandfather claimed to have predicted that the British would be in for trouble if they attacked the Turks on their own mountainous home ground.

I wasn't aware of the gold standard and strike issues. I'll ask you about these things in a separate thread to avoid derailing this one.