RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Lynton Blair <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 2 Mar 1999 02:51:19 GMT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (72 lines)
This is getting rather hard to follow: I can hardly figure out who is
supporting milk as a good food and who is trashing it.

And remember, neanderthals, that some people _can_ utilize milk effectively,
whereas other _cannot_!  So you can prove it either way, just select your
guinea-pigs carefully...

At 12:17 AM 3/2/99 +0100, Alan wrote:
>Hi Kirt,
>
>> >> Tom:
>> >> Your correlation that the US has a high level of milk drinking,
>> >> with high levels of ostoporosis, does not prove a causal link.
>>
>> Alan:
>> >This is exactly what the milk industry says. You don't happen to be
>> >funded by them by any chance?
>>
>> This is exactly what any reasonable person says, Alan. Your logic in
>> drawing conclusions is lame. But, yeah, you can sure see it clearly. I
>> recently discovered that Tom Billings is a front for the dairy industry. He
>> just tries to fool people! <gag>
>>
>> >> Tom:
>> >> And you should not let fundamentalist natural hygiene blind you. There
>> >> is very little in NH that is "scientific."
>>
>>
>> Alan:
>> >All the authors I have read quote numerous research reports. And the
>> >fact that people who practise it generally enjoy otherwise unknown
>> >health and wellbeing is a "scientific finding" in itself don't you
>> >think?
>>
>> OK, Alan, if you pretend that your bias is one that is supported by
>> research then you better barf up "numerous research articles". For
>> starters, how about one that shows Tom is a puppet of the dairy industry?
>> Who are your "authors" anyway? You quip to another lister that they are
>> obviously just believing something they read, but you sound like a blind
>> man following the blind NH authors yourself, with your molecular words
>> (which JL has completely humbled you on but you are, yes again, blind to
>> it) and your rightous attitude.
>>
>> As for the supposed health of NHers. Gawd, gaff, and guffaw. NHers have a
>> VERY poor track record anecdotally, and I challange you to show even a tiny
>> bit of "numerous research articles" that support your claim otherwize.
>>
>> BTW, why don't fundamentalist NHers have their own mailing list, where they
>> can pat each other on the back for being so privy to the Truth, mock anyone
>> who disagrees (which is the rest of the world's population), and debate
>> whether or not nuts should be sprouted and whether or not Herbert Shelton
>> was actually God, or just the son of God.
>>
>> Is it just me, or is this getting tiresome?
>>
>You are getting tiresome...and as I have only 5 mails per day
>on this echo I will reply in future to those who supply something
>tangible and perhaps useful rather than someone who obviously has
>nothing better to do with his/her spare time than complain about
>all and sundry without any counterarguments. You give the impression
>that you have some sort of (health?) problem and are rather
>frustrated. As to the numerous research papers on milk (at least
>those which were not funded by the milk industry) I would need
>hours to name them all (try the Diamonds for starters as this is
>neither a new nor unknown subject and there are plenty of quotes
>even in there to keep you satisfied for a few weeks). If you want
>a few German papers...I can quote them as well.
>
>Alan
>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2