ruckman101 wrote:Never mind the increasingly large segment of our population that's lactose intolerant, now why would that be? There are toxins poisoning us beyond the increasingly antibiotic resistant strains of intestinal bacteria the pasteurizing process initially protected us from.
neal
Totally unscientific. As a trained medievalist, I would suggest you leave behind faith and blind belief as a methodology; it didn't work in the 13th century, and it doesn't work now.
Allow me to quote you this from the National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse:
"What causes lactose intolerance?
The cause of lactose intolerance is best explained by describing how a person develops lactase deficiency.
Primary lactase deficiency develops over time and begins after about age 2 when the body begins to produce less lactase. Most children who have lactase deficiency do not experience symptoms of lactose intolerance until late adolescence or adulthood.
Researchers have identified a possible genetic link to primary lactase deficiency. Some people inherit a gene from their parents that makes it likely they will develop primary lactase deficiency. This discovery may be useful in developing future genetic tests to identify people at risk for lactose intolerance.
Secondary lactase deficiency results from injury to the small intestine that occurs with severe diarrheal illness, celiac disease, Crohn's disease, or chemotherapy. This type of lactase deficiency can occur at any age but is more common in infancy."
There's no mention of pasteurization as the cause of lactose intolerance.
Here's the original link:
http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddisease ... ce/#causes
If you have
credible scientific evidence that pasteurization is a cause of significant issues, then bring it in, and let's talk about that. But you'll discover that, having grown up in Eugene and attended the U of O, I have an
incredibly low tolerance for hippy "hey man, that's not cool" responses based on ideology (corporations/science/whatever I don't like are bad) and not in thoughtful, intelligent investigation according to the best information and practices we have.
Neal, I'm not in any way opposed to the concept that science does things that are bad; on the contrary, I'm extraordinarily unhappy about the long-term social/environmental effects of things like petrochlorate in milk, or whatever's messing with the biological development of frogs in watershed runoff areas (like Portland). But I fail to see how railing against things we don't like, in the absence of ANY kind of evidence is going to convince the people we need to convince that change is necessary. If you can't even get me to agree with you on the basis of lack of evidence, when I ALREADY agree with you in spirit, how are we going to change the minds of those don't agree with us?
Show me proof; no, show me suggestive studies that point in the direction you argue. That's what I need to follow you down this path.
Best,
Michael L
