Minutus

No, I wasn't aware that there's yet another, current push to ban raw
milk!
Isn't it interesting that the government (or ??) wants to "protect" us
from raw milk (and vitamins, herbs, etc.), but they're okay with sugar,
aspartame, etc., etc., etc...

Tanya, where did you see information about this current episode?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

i hve been getting information through mercola.com and organic bytes i
think.
i get so many posts from so many organizations. he has posted on california
and
michigan working on banning raw milk. here is something from mercola'a
blog:

FDA Continues to Harass Raw Milk Providers
BusinessWeek.com followed up on an excellent article posted last month
about the targeting of rural raw milk sources by state and federal
officials with details of a "raid" conducted earlier this year during a
drop-off of raw milk in a Cincinnati parking lot.

Approximately eight FDA agents and four Cincinnati police officers stopped
the truck of a Kentucky farmer and began confiscating bottles of raw milk
over the loud protests of shareholders. Lawmen tried to force the farmer
into a "confession," but the farmer merely stated what he offered to his
shareholders and that the milk wasn't pasteurized.

The situation was so traumatic for the farmer that he was hospitalized
several times for stress issues. Fortunately, several of the farmer's loyal
shareholders took charge temporarily in his place to milk the cows, bottle
the milk and drive his product to market, as he recuperated.

As the story goes, Kentucky officials decided against filing charges after
a meeting of its Milk Safety Board, not so in Ohio. To avoid a draining
legal battle, the farmer opted to plead guilty to labeling and licensing
laws and paid a fine. And, the FDA sent him a letter warning about
interstate deliveries too.

Amazing that, with all the problems in the world that require somebody's
attention, federal officials and local lawmen chose to waste the
government's time and our tax dollars ganging up on a rural dairy farmer
delivering raw milk, one of the finest sources of calcium available.

BusinessWeek.com November 27, 2006

by Dr. Mercola
November 24, 2006
if you do a web search, you will find more.

fyi, use goodsearch.com as your search engine. you can designate Natural
Solutions Foundation as the
recipient of $.01 for each search you do. this organization, based in
southern nys is devoted to fighting
the codex alimentarius on a world wide basis and needs money. this is a no
brainer to help the effort

tanya

and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations
regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any
document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this
website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out
of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site
or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a
single daily digest.

Thanks Tanya,
That really is awful...
Have you read anywhere anyone organizing to "legalize" raw milk?
It is (unless something has recently changed) legal in a couple of
states--California and ??--where the cows whose milk will be sold raw
simply go thru more frequent and stringent health exams. Anyone know
of anything being done toward that end?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

shannon,

try going to organicconsumers.org
this website heavily tracks the ongoings around organic food
and related items. they have something in their 1/25/07
online issue. they are always alerting the public to issues
and making calls for political activism

tanya
and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations
regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any
document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this
website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out
of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site
or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a
single daily digest.

Peter Boehm wrote:

I'm sorry but I am missing your point here:
The link goes to a write-up of someone's opinion on other opinions of
what gets written in scientific studies - that's third-hand opinion at
best:-))
I am loth to even consider reading such an article unless I personally
know the reputation of the author and like and trust it.

On the other hand - I spend hours and hours reading the write-ups of
studies so that I can make my OWN consclusions. I soon get to know whose
research I can take at face value (it always cross-references well with
my own studies) and whose to put in the round file next to my desk, on
any subject in my main areas of activity.
For example I can look at ANY feline or canine research and know
right away from author names whether I can read quickly, or if need to
get out my scalpel and shred off most of it before taking the rest with
a bucket of salt and a sceptical squint-eye.
I think that this is a very important skill which every homeopath needs.
But the science MUST be read first-hand from original papers - not
someone's summary or opinion or interpretation "for the lay public" to
swallow (hook line and sinker).
I never look at what's reported in some magazine or website article -
nor at any "interpretation" or re-wording or published article on the
research. Only the *original* has value to me (unless I know and trust
specific authors with whose originals I am well familiar) and yet still
needs to be seen with a critical eye.

For example I am not interested in a reporter's article about research
where he may state that "50% of dogs were healed" or some such. Maybe
there were 2 dogs in the study. That's statistically speaking - a
useless study - but you'd know it reading the orighal which states 2
dogs are used - not that "50% got well".

Is there some other point I missed?
NAmaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Sheri Nakken wrote:

I had mine for 20 years with 100% honest reporting from my lab, so you
are not right that all scientists are crooks or lose their jobs:-) Just
the opposite is the norm.

Scientists DO report the study results, includihg negative ones, to
those paying the bill. Fair's fair:-) But the company paying for ones
that come up negative - will choose not to publish them. And/or they
will redesign a study to get results they can *interpret* to their
benefit. It's usually that simple.

NAmaste,
IRene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

Humans are also suffering still from the bad study conclusions.
Humans also need animal protein to repair their animal tissues:-)
That and another in which the scientist eventually admitted he'd made a
decimal place mistake about cholesterol in real eggs:-)
Adelle Davis reported the real science on eggs back in the fifties.
It's just that big pharma will CHOOSE which studies to use in propaganda
- so they can sell more drugs. Any organisation who makes obscene money
from sick people is to be scrutinized exceptionally well in my view.

Eggs are good; nature does not make mistakes; man does

Namaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Tanya Marquette wrote:

I quit reading his site till he provides free buckets of salt to go with
his opinions:-)

One needs to be an expert in advance to benefit from anything there as
so much of it is plain wrong and he refuses to change it.
So .... be an expert and know in advance what's true ...in which case
why go there?

This is a typical example of how NOT to seek real facts.
....Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Dear Irene,

it´s not just opinion , the author looked up the laboratory data and
found out that in 3/4 of the paper there were other members of the crew
involved , namely statistics paid by pharma comp., which didn´t show up
in the published paper but other names were filled in of reknown
physicians, which didn´t take part in the research at all.

that´s all.

Peter
Irene de Villiers schrieb:
--
Peter Boehm
Heilpraktiker, Dipl.-Biol.
Aureliaweg 22
93055 Regensburg
0941 5 999 566

www.peterboehm.de
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just look at how tense that guy is on his videos, you can see where
he's coming from!



Simon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]