- Aug 8, 2011
- 1,981
- 40
- 141
I just read an article that made some ridiculous claims. I don't know if you ladies & guys have read it, too, <snip>
, the Food and Drug Administration and nearly every other public health organization do not endorse consuming raw milk.
But to buy this product and feed it to your children? Might as well lock them in your car on a 100 degree day while you stop by the casino to try and win the jackpot.
laws are also written for LOTS of reasons that have nothing to do with keeping us safe. a great many laws are passed to serve someone's agenda.
public health organizations have endorsed all sorts of things which have subsequently turned out to be wrong or damaging to your health.
and to compare the (small percentage risk of illness from raw milk) to the (certain harm and probable death from being locked in a car on a 100 degree day)+(implication that you think you're actualy going to win the lotto and are stupid enough to risk your children to gamble on it) is so outrageously overstated and inflamatory that it makes me disregard any possible points made by the rest of the article.
they did get one thing right... apparent rise of the frequency of an illness is *often* caused by improved reporting and collection of data. what they didn't tell you about that is that the ACTUAL incidence may be going DOWN even when reporting is going up. for instance, why is Autism SO much more prevalent today than 100 years ago? it may be that there is more actual autism or it may not be, but the CHANGE in stats is meaningless because 1) reporting criteria has changed and 2) diagnosing criteria has changed.
it could be that the illnesses are down 50% but the liklihood of an illness being reporting is up 500%, making the number of illnesses LOOK like they're on the rise, when actual illnesses are actually decreasing. at any rate, the stats they're using will *not* tell you what they say it does. I don't know what the real numbers are, but what they're telling you is *not* an accurate representation of the facts, and the spin they put on it is not honest.
but I will say the site is glossy, my curiosity is piqued as to who funds it.