The article points out “perfectly healthy, well-managed cows can pass
tests and bacteria can still be present their milk,” he says. Bacteria
like campylobacter, E. coli O157and salmonella can exist inside udders
without animals experiencing pain or showing symptoms, he says.
Scrupulous cleanliness won’t guarantee safety, either, he says. Cows
can get contaminated from contact with wild animals or birds.
Pasteurizing kills pathogens".

Read mo
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/...inking-returns

On May 31, 9:36*am, Landon > wrote:
> The article points out perfectly healthy, well-managed cows can pass
> tests and bacteria can still be present their milk, he says. Bacteria
> like campylobacter, E. coli O157and salmonella can exist inside udders
> without animals experiencing pain or showing symptoms, he says.
> Scrupulous cleanliness won t guarantee safety, either, he says. Cows
> can get contaminated from contact with wild animals or birds.
> Pasteurizing kills pathogens".
>
> Read mohttp://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/...inking-returns

==
The "raw-milk-drinkers" are a stubborn lot and common sense is not
their forte. While on the farm I drank "raw milk" for about twenty
years and I still drink lots of milk. However, it had better be
pasteurized as I know all about the pathogens that raw milk can be
contaminated with.

We had cows that were tested for TB and Bangs disease in the later
years on the farm but in the early days people contracted TB and
undulant fever from untested cows. I had an aunt who contracted TB
from cows milk and she suffered from the effects of that for years.
Those with undulant fever had joint disease and some even died from
it.

From a health aspect, these "raw-milk-drinkers" are way out in left
field. There is NO advantage in drinking raw milk over pasteurized
milk what-so-ever.
==

On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:16:11 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
wrote:

>The "raw-milk-drinkers" are a stubborn lot and common sense is not
>their forte. While on the farm I drank "raw milk" for about twenty
>years and I still drink lots of milk. However, it had better be
>pasteurized as I know all about the pathogens that raw milk can be
>contaminated with.
>
>We had cows that were tested for TB and Bangs disease in the later
>years on the farm but in the early days people contracted TB and
>undulant fever from untested cows. I had an aunt who contracted TB
>from cows milk and she suffered from the effects of that for years.
>Those with undulant fever had joint disease and some even died from
>it.
>
>From a health aspect, these "raw-milk-drinkers" are way out in left
>field. There is NO advantage in drinking raw milk over pasteurized
>milk what-so-ever.
>==

I've heard argument on both sides of this issue. I thought I would
present this article as an attempt to gather as many opinions as
possible. Thanks for including your own.

On Tue, 31 May 2011 11:36:36 -0400, Landon wrote:

> The article points out “perfectly healthy, well-managed cows can pass
> tests and bacteria can still be present their milk,” he says. Bacteria
> like campylobacter, E. coli O157and salmonella can exist inside udders
> without animals experiencing pain or showing symptoms, he says.
> Scrupulous cleanliness won’t guarantee safety, either, he says. Cows
> can get contaminated from contact with wild animals or birds.
> Pasteurizing kills pathogens".
>
> Read mo
> http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/...inking-returns

that's why it's only safe to drink grain alcohol and distilled water.

your pal,
jack

tell that to my sister who cut her asthma meds by eighty percent, this like
everything else has extremists on both ends of the spectrum. good for some
not for others, some care for the animlas in a way to avoid bugs, others do
not, it is once again an individual choice that each adult must make for
themselves... if it were so hidious the states that have started allowing
it, and most dary farmers kids wouldn't be here, Lee

"Roy" > wrote in message
...
On May 31, 9:36 am, Landon > wrote:
> The article points out perfectly healthy, well-managed cows can pass
> tests and bacteria can still be present their milk, he says. Bacteria
> like campylobacter, E. coli O157and salmonella can exist inside udders
> without animals experiencing pain or showing symptoms, he says.
> Scrupulous cleanliness won t guarantee safety, either, he says. Cows
> can get contaminated from contact with wild animals or birds.
> Pasteurizing kills pathogens".
>
> Read
> mohttp://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/...inking-returns

==
The "raw-milk-drinkers" are a stubborn lot and common sense is not
their forte. While on the farm I drank "raw milk" for about twenty
years and I still drink lots of milk. However, it had better be
pasteurized as I know all about the pathogens that raw milk can be
contaminated with.

We had cows that were tested for TB and Bangs disease in the later
years on the farm but in the early days people contracted TB and
undulant fever from untested cows. I had an aunt who contracted TB
from cows milk and she suffered from the effects of that for years.
Those with undulant fever had joint disease and some even died from
it.

From a health aspect, these "raw-milk-drinkers" are way out in left
field. There is NO advantage in drinking raw milk over pasteurized
milk what-so-ever.
==

On Tue, 31 May 2011 12:42:49 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 May 2011 11:36:36 -0400, Landon wrote:
>
> > The article points out “perfectly healthy, well-managed cows can pass
> > tests and bacteria can still be present their milk,” he says. Bacteria
> > like campylobacter, E. coli O157and salmonella can exist inside udders
> > without animals experiencing pain or showing symptoms, he says.
> > Scrupulous cleanliness won’t guarantee safety, either, he says. Cows
> > can get contaminated from contact with wild animals or birds.
> > Pasteurizing kills pathogens".
> >
> > Read mo
> > http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/...inking-returns
>
> that's why it's only safe to drink grain alcohol and distilled water.
>
For medicinal purposes only, of course.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On May 31, 11:08*am, sf > wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 12:42:49 -0400, blake murphy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 May 2011 11:36:36 -0400, Landon wrote:
>
> > > The article points out “perfectly healthy, well-managed cows can pass
> > > tests and bacteria can still be present their milk,” he says. Bacteria
> > > like campylobacter, E. coli O157and salmonella can exist inside udders
> > > without animals experiencing pain or showing symptoms, he says.
> > > Scrupulous cleanliness won’t guarantee safety, either, he says. Cows
> > > can get contaminated from contact with wild animals or birds.
> > > Pasteurizing kills pathogens".
>
> > > Read mo
> > >http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/...inking-returns
>
> > that's why it's only safe to drink grain alcohol and distilled water.
>
> For medicinal purposes only, of course.
>
> --
>
> Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

==
I'm sure in his case it is to get stinko.
==

Landon wrote:
> The article points out "perfectly healthy, well-managed cows can pass
> tests and bacteria can still be present their milk," he says. Bacteria
> like campylobacter, E. coli O157and salmonella can exist inside udders
> without animals experiencing pain or showing symptoms, he says.
> Scrupulous cleanliness won't guarantee safety, either, he says. Cows
> can get contaminated from contact with wild animals or birds.
> Pasteurizing kills pathogens".
>
> Read mo
> http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/...inking-returns

Thank you for the link to the article.

The most interesting sentence for those of us who like to steer a middle
course was this:

"Planck says gently-pasteurized, unhomogenized milk is an acceptable
compromise."

Can anyone provide more information on what is meant by
"gently-pasteurized" and how one might find the above-mentioned product
of gently pasteurized, unhomogenized milk? I'd be much more comfortable
trying _that_ instead of raw milk.

-S-

On May 31, 11:16*am, Roy > wrote:
> On May 31, 9:36*am, Landon > wrote:
>
> > The article points out perfectly healthy, well-managed cows can pass
> > tests and bacteria can still be present their milk, he says. Bacteria
> > like campylobacter, E. coli O157and salmonella can exist inside udders
> > without animals experiencing pain or showing symptoms, he says.
> > Scrupulous cleanliness won t guarantee safety, either, he says. Cows
> > can get contaminated from contact with wild animals or birds.
> > Pasteurizing kills pathogens".
>
> > Read mohttp://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/...inking-returns
>
> ==
> The "raw-milk-drinkers" are a stubborn lot and common sense is not
> their forte. While on the farm I drank "raw milk" for about twenty
> years and I still drink lots of milk. However, it had better be
> pasteurized as I know all about the pathogens that raw milk can be
> contaminated with.
>
> We had cows that were tested for TB and Bangs disease in the later
> years on the farm but in the early days people contracted TB and
> undulant fever from untested cows. I had an aunt who contracted TB
> from cows milk and she suffered from the effects of that for years.
> Those with undulant fever had joint disease and some even died from
> it.
>
> From a health aspect, these "raw-milk-drinkers" are way out in left
> field. There is NO advantage in drinking raw milk over pasteurized
> milk what-so-ever.
> ==

I agree with you that it's not worth the risk, but there's one non
"health aspect" advantage. There's this one aspect that people are
always forgetting about on this NG, and that it flavor. Raw milk
tastes really good. The best compromise is low temperature
pasteurized: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/200...udderly-fresh/
The UHT crap that can be stored at room temp is awful.

--Bryan

On May 31, 3:31*pm, Bryan > wrote:
> On May 31, 11:16*am, Roy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 9:36*am, Landon > wrote:
>
> > > The article points out perfectly healthy, well-managed cows can pass
> > > tests and bacteria can still be present their milk, he says. Bacteria
> > > like campylobacter, E. coli O157and salmonella can exist inside udders
> > > without animals experiencing pain or showing symptoms, he says.
> > > Scrupulous cleanliness won t guarantee safety, either, he says. Cows
> > > can get contaminated from contact with wild animals or birds.
> > > Pasteurizing kills pathogens".
>
> > > Read mohttp://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/...inking-returns
>
> > ==
> > The "raw-milk-drinkers" are a stubborn lot and common sense is not
> > their forte. While on the farm I drank "raw milk" for about twenty
> > years and I still drink lots of milk. However, it had better be
> > pasteurized as I know all about the pathogens that raw milk can be
> > contaminated with.
>
> > We had cows that were tested for TB and Bangs disease in the later
> > years on the farm but in the early days people contracted TB and
> > undulant fever from untested cows. I had an aunt who contracted TB
> > from cows milk and she suffered from the effects of that for years.
> > Those with undulant fever had joint disease and some even died from
> > it.
>
> > From a health aspect, these "raw-milk-drinkers" are way out in left
> > field. There is NO advantage in drinking raw milk over pasteurized
> > milk what-so-ever.
> > ==
>
> I agree with you that it's not worth the risk, but there's one non
> "health aspect" advantage. *There's this one aspect that people are
> always forgetting about on this NG, and that it flavor. *Raw milk
> tastes really good. *The best compromise is low temperature
> pasteurized: *http://www.spokesman.com/stories/200...udderly-fresh/
> The UHT crap that can be stored at room temp is awful.
>
> --Bryan

And flavor is definitely a thing with milk! The freshest milk I ever
tasted was a sample of my son's first food, and I can tell you from
experience, everything lauded about Mother's Milk is TRUE!
YUMMMMMMMMM!

Formula on the other hand...YUCK! ;-)

John Kuthe...

On 1/06/2011 2:46 AM, Storrmmee wrote:
> tell that to my sister who cut her asthma meds by eighty percent, this like
> everything else has extremists on both ends of the spectrum. good for some
> not for others, some care for the animlas in a way to avoid bugs, others do
> not, it is once again an individual choice that each adult must make for
> themselves... if it were so hidious the states that have started allowing
> it, and most dary farmers kids wouldn't be here, Lee

If your sister went from pasteurised milk to totally fresh, I am not
surprised at her having an asthma symptom reduction. You see, most
processed milk is not just pasteurised these days but it also has added
extras such as salt. I suspect the salt is used to effect a longer shelf
life. It can't be simply to kill bugs in the fresh milk because those
same bugs would be killed off by the pasteurisation process. However,
the salt would have an effect on bugs introduced after a pasteurised
milk container is opened for the first time. This would be why the shelf
life is much longer today than it was in the days prepasteurisation.
Your sister may have benefited a reduced salt intake.

Since I became much more concerned about my salt intake and took
measures to reduce the level quite markedly, my asthma symptoms dropped
off quite dramatically. A single dose of Seretide daily is all I need
now instead of 2 doses twice daily. That's a similar reduction level to
what your sister achieved. I also rarely need ventolin now as well. I
still like to carry an inhaler around with me much of the time, just in
case. I use the inhaler rarely now.

By the way, dairy farmers kids would have regular doses of exposure to
the bugs over a long period of time. This would increase their natural
immunity to any bugs found in the milk they would be drinking. Remember,
these kids would be drinking cows milk from the time they were weaned. A
person unused to the bugs in fresh milk could be laid low by a single
glass.


http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...oo-says-review

The following URL is of a study on dietary sodium and the effects on
asthma. The study results match my own experience quite accurately.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00379-0036.pdf

<snip>

Krypsis

On Jun 2, 7:35*am, Krypsis > wrote:
> On 1/06/2011 2:46 AM, Storrmmee wrote:
>
> > tell that to my sister who cut her asthma meds by eighty percent, this like
> > everything else has extremists on both ends of the spectrum. *good for some
> > not for others, some care for the animlas in a way to avoid bugs, others do
> > not, it is once again an individual choice that each adult must make for
> > themselves... if it were so hidious the states that have started allowing
> > it, and most dary farmers kids wouldn't be here, Lee
>
> If your sister went from pasteurised milk to totally fresh, I am not
> surprised at her having an asthma symptom reduction. You see, most
> processed milk is not just pasteurised these days but it also has added
> extras such as salt. I suspect the salt is used to effect a longer shelf
> life. It can't be simply to kill bugs in the fresh milk because those
> same bugs would be killed off by the pasteurisation process. However,
> the salt would have an effect on bugs introduced after a pasteurised
> milk container is opened for the first time. This would be why the shelf
> life is much longer today than it was in the days prepasteurisation.
> Your sister may have benefited a reduced salt intake.
>
> Since I became much more concerned about my salt intake and took
> measures to reduce the level quite markedly, my asthma symptoms dropped
> off quite dramatically. A single dose of Seretide daily is all I need
> now instead of 2 doses twice daily. That's a similar reduction level to
> what your sister achieved. I also rarely need ventolin now as well. I
> still like to carry an inhaler around with me much of the time, just in
> case. I use the inhaler rarely now.
>
> By the way, dairy farmers kids would have regular doses of exposure to
> the bugs over a long period of time. This would increase their natural
> immunity to any bugs found in the milk they would be drinking. Remember,
> these kids would be drinking cows milk from the time they were weaned. A
> person unused to the bugs in fresh milk could be laid low by a single
> glass.
>
> http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...uction-may-hav...
>
> The following URL is of a study on dietary sodium and the effects on
> asthma. The study results match my own experience quite accurately.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...thorax00379-00...
>
> <snip>
>
> Krypsis

==
A double-blind study of 27 men...whoopee...I sure would believe that
study...NOT.

As an asthmatic, I seriously doubt that salt is a factor at all...and
in the pasteurization of milk salt is NOT added in most cases.
Whomsoever came up with that is full of **it.
==

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 09:05:18 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
wrote:

>==
>A double-blind study of 27 men...whoopee...I sure would believe that
>study...NOT.
>
>As an asthmatic, I seriously doubt that salt is a factor at all...and
>in the pasteurization of milk salt is NOT added in most cases.
>Whomsoever came up with that is full of **it.
>==

You've either chosen to not read the study or weren't able to
understand it significance.

The study does prove the reaction to salt, and your unreasonable
stance of ignoring the proof doesn't void it.

The only one who is full of shit is you.

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> In article <70736995-99b2-4445-b034-26cea10376e7
> @d1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, says...
>>
>
>>
>> I agree with you that it's not worth the risk, but there's one non
>> "health aspect" advantage. There's this one aspect that people are
>> always forgetting about on this NG, and that it flavor. Raw milk
>> tastes really good.
>
> I suspect that's because it's fullfat. We can buy pasteurised full-fat
> Jersey milk here which tastes wonderful.
>
> http://www.milk.co.uk/page.aspx?intPageID=43
>
>
> Janet UK

We always skimmed the cream off the milk when we lived on the farm and had
milk cows. Unhomogenized milk is kind of funky to drink since it has lumps
of cream in it. You can NOT beat fresh cream on cereal though!! I miss the
milk but I really, really miss the fresh cream. You can't buy anything
remotely like it in the stores.

Ms P

"Landon" > wrote in message
...
> The article points out "perfectly healthy, well-managed cows can pass
> tests and bacteria can still be present their milk," he says. Bacteria
> like campylobacter, E. coli O157and salmonella can exist inside udders
> without animals experiencing pain or showing symptoms, he says.
> Scrupulous cleanliness won't guarantee safety, either, he says. Cows
> can get contaminated from contact with wild animals or birds.
> Pasteurizing kills pathogens".
>
> Read mo
> http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/...inking-returns

Raw milk, raw cream and fresh eggs are the things I've always missed about
living on the farm.

Ms P

In article > ,
Krypsis > wrote:

> On 1/06/2011 2:46 AM, Storrmmee wrote:
> > tell that to my sister who cut her asthma meds by eighty percent,

> If your sister went from pasteurised milk to totally fresh, I am not
> surprised at her having an asthma symptom reduction. You see, most
> processed milk is not just pasteurised these days but it also has added
> extras such as salt. I suspect the salt is used to effect a longer shelf
> life.

I think we just had this discussion, and I already answered this. I
guess I need to answer this again, though.

I can't speak for Australia, but in the US there are strict labeling
laws. The label on food says what is in it. All the milk I've ever
bought says it has milk and vitamin D in it. That's all the
ingredients. The label also shows what nutrients are in it. The jug in
my fridge says it has 125mg of sodium per serving of one cup (240ml).
That's not an added extra. Mother Nature put that in, via the cow.

If you have different information, I'd like to see that.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Jun 2, 10:31*am, Landon > wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 09:05:18 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> wrote:
>
> >==
> >A double-blind study of 27 men...whoopee...I sure would believe that
> >study...NOT.
>
> >As an asthmatic, I seriously doubt that salt is a factor at all...and
> >in the pasteurization of milk salt is NOT added in most cases.
> >Whomsoever came up with that is full of **it.
> >==
>
> You've either chosen to not read the study or weren't able to
> understand it significance.
>
> The study does prove the reaction to salt, and your unreasonable
> stance of ignoring the proof doesn't void it.
>
> The only one who is full of shit is you.

==
That is your "opinion" also...you have no proof that I am full of
"shit"...27 people in one study done in 1993...come on...give me a
break. Perhaps a study of 2700 people would give cause for some
certainty in the assessment of salt and its influence on asthma.
==

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
wrote:

>On Jun 2, 10:31*am, Landon > wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 09:05:18 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >==
>> >A double-blind study of 27 men...whoopee...I sure would believe that
>> >study...NOT.
>>
>> >As an asthmatic, I seriously doubt that salt is a factor at all...and
>> >in the pasteurization of milk salt is NOT added in most cases.
>> >Whomsoever came up with that is full of **it.
>> >==
>>
>> You've either chosen to not read the study or weren't able to
>> understand it significance.
>>
>> The study does prove the reaction to salt, and your unreasonable
>> stance of ignoring the proof doesn't void it.
>>
>> The only one who is full of shit is you.
>
>==
>That is your "opinion" also...you have no proof that I am full of
>"shit"...27 people in one study done in 1993...come on...give me a
>break. Perhaps a study of 2700 people would give cause for some
>certainty in the assessment of salt and its influence on asthma.
>==

If a study of one person on "Does fire burn you if you put your bare
hand in it" is done in 1850 does the passage of time make that fact
any less viable?

No.

Which part of the science performed in that study do you think is not
accurate and why?

The results of the supposed test I gave as an example, if supported by
a person who read the report of the burned person, become no less
accurate and are certainly not "opinion", as mine were not.

Your failure to support your disbelief with science, but only YOUR
opinion, makes your opinion nonsense.

The numbers in testing make no difference in some cases. This is one.

The date of the test also makes no difference in it's validity.

So far, you're arguing science with opinion.

You fail.

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
wrote:

>==
>That is your "opinion" also...you have no proof that I am full of
>"shit"...27 people in one study done in 1993...come on...give me a
>break. Perhaps a study of 2700 people would give cause for some
>certainty in the assessment of salt and its influence on asthma.
>==

My proof that you are full of shit is the testing itself. Disprove it
with facts and science and you'll show that you are not full of shit.

Until then...

On Jun 2, 11:49*am, Landon > wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> wrote:
>
> >==
> >That is your "opinion" also...you have no proof that I am full of
> >"shit"...27 people in one study done in 1993...come on...give me a
> >break. Perhaps a study of 2700 people would give cause for some
> >certainty in the assessment of salt and its influence on asthma.
> >==
>
> My proof that you are full of shit is the testing itself. Disprove it
> with facts and science and you'll show that you are not full of shit.
>
> Until then...

==
From Medscape Today:

THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES, WHICH HAVE FAILED TO
DEMONSTRATE AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN DIETARY SODIUM AND MEASURES OF
ASTHMA ACTIVITY. The largest, by Britton et al.,[41] was a study
designed to test the hypothesis that dietary sodium intake is an
independent risk factor for bronchial hyper-reactivity in the general
population. Airway responsiveness to methacholine, atopy, 24 h urinary
sodium excretion, and self-reported smoking and symptom history were
measured in a random sample of 1702 adults aged 18-70. The results
showed no relation between the relative odds of hyper-reactivity to
methacholine and 24 h urinary sodium excretion, either before or after
adjusting for age, smoking, allergen skin weal diameter and gender. In
addition, no association between 24 h sodium excretion and the
magnitude of the mean allergen skin weal response or the PD20 value.
The authors conclude that the findings do not support the hypothesis
that a high dietary sodium intake is a risk factor for airway hyper-
reactivity or atopic disease in the general adult population.

Deveroux et al.[42] used data from two epidemiological studies from
the north of England, one of 1059 shipyard workers aged 16-27 years
old, and a second of 587 men who lived in either rural or urban
environments. Twenty-four hour urine samples were available for 22%
and 40% of individuals who participated in the studies, respectively,
and they demonstrated that there was no association between 24 h
sodium excretion and airways responsiveness in either the shipyard
workers or the subgroup of men who lived in a rural environment, but a
positive association between 24 h sodium excretion and airways hyper-
responsiveness in the subgroup of men who lived in an urban
environment. One limitation of this study is the absence of data from
up to 78% of individuals eligible to participate and the inability to
exclude the possibility of response bias influencing the results.

Sparrow et al.[43] examined the methacholine airway responsiveness and
the 24 h excretion of sodium and potassium. Methacholine airway
responsiveness was examined among 273 male participants (age range
44-82 years) using 24 urinary excretion of Na+ and K+ as a surrogate
for intake. A significant relationship between methacholine dose-
response slope and potassium excretion was found. However,
methacholine airway responsiveness was not correlated with sodium
excretion.

Zoia et al.[44] sought to determine the relationship of sodium and
potassium intake, assessed by means of a 7-day dietary questionnaire,
with bronchial responsiveness in a sample of the general population.
Two hundred and five participants completed the dietary and
respiratory questionnaires and baseline pulmonary function, while 146
subjects underwent a histamine challenge test. These authors could not
demonstrate a relationship between these dietary factors and bronchial
responsiveness or respiratory symptoms, although this may be a
consequence of the use of dietary questionnaires, which tend to be
poor at measuring the sodium intake accurately.

These four studies[41-44] that have not demonstrated an association
between sodium intake and asthma are difficult to reconcile with the
studies that demonstrate an inverse relation reviewed earlier in this
article. In particular, the study by Britton et al.[41] is a large
study using the objective measures of both sodium intake and airway
reactivity and provides a substantial challenge to the hypothesis that
dietary sodium is associated with asthma in the general population.
Possible explanations for the inconsistency of the data are that
dietary factors may have a different effect in children and young
adults, as the age of the individual is an important factor in
determining the sensitivity to sodium, thus explaining why studies
such as those of Britton et al.[41] and Sparrow et al.[43] that have
examined relatively older populations do not observe an effect.
Alternatively, dietary sodium MAY NOT have an effect on asthma in the
general population.

<Major capitalization mine>

==

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:40:26 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
wrote:

>On Jun 2, 11:49*am, Landon > wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >==
>> >That is your "opinion" also...you have no proof that I am full of
>> >"shit"...27 people in one study done in 1993...come on...give me a
>> >break. Perhaps a study of 2700 people would give cause for some
>> >certainty in the assessment of salt and its influence on asthma.
>> >==
>>
>> My proof that you are full of shit is the testing itself. Disprove it
>> with facts and science and you'll show that you are not full of shit.
>>
>> Until then...
>
>==
>From Medscape Today:
<snip>
>Alternatively, dietary sodium MAY NOT have an effect on asthma in the
>general population.

You've shown a report that dietary sodium MAY not have the effect that
the study in question has proven. To disprove the study in question,
you must first disprove their test results that show the end results
they've found. To show only *another* study that states that they MAY
be wrong, isn't proof, it's conjecture.

From what you've shown, none of their tests are disproved.

Alternatively, as concluded by the quote above, dietary sodium MAY
have an effect on asthma in the general population.

Had it concluded with "This study proves beyond doubt that dietary
sodium does not have an effect on asthma in the general population.",
then your argument would hold water.

That's not the case however.

Again, you fail to substantiate your claims.

State precisely what parts of their testing is in error or
inconclusive. Failure to do so will show that you state only your
opinion that *they must be wrong because you want them to be wrong*.

I mean no malice in saying that you're full of shit. It's a status
first introduced to this argument from you. My believe is that the
test results are accurate and that if either side of the argument is,
in your own words, "full of shit", then it's you who are so.

I have neither the medical training nor expertise in the field of
research to claim an absolute in either direction. I fall back on the
full disclosure of testing methods and results that have been
presented in my favor, and the lack of that presentation in your own
favor.

I examined the testing methods presented in the report in question and
found no flaws that would show it to be in error.

Perhaps you saw precise flaws that I missed.

I would love to examine the evidence you've discovered.

I await that evidence. Thus far, you've failed to present it.

In article >,
Janet > wrote:

> In article <dabel-2C8E20.09593502062011@c-61-68-245-
> 199.per.connect.net.au>, says...
> >
> > In article > ,
> > Krypsis > wrote:
> >
> > > On 1/06/2011 2:46 AM, Storrmmee wrote:
> > > > tell that to my sister who cut her asthma meds by eighty percent,
> >
> > > If your sister went from pasteurised milk to totally fresh, I am not
> > > surprised at her having an asthma symptom reduction. You see, most
> > > processed milk is not just pasteurised these days but it also has added
> > > extras such as salt. I suspect the salt is used to effect a longer shelf
> > > life.
> >
> > I think we just had this discussion, and I already answered this. I
> > guess I need to answer this again, though.
> >
> > I can't speak for Australia, but in the US there are strict labeling
> > laws. The label on food says what is in it. All the milk I've ever
> > bought says it has milk and vitamin D in it. That's all the
> > ingredients. The label also shows what nutrients are in it. The jug in
> > my fridge says it has 125mg of sodium per serving of one cup (240ml).
> > That's not an added extra. Mother Nature put that in, via the cow.
>
> Even human breast milk contains salts.
>
> http://www.breastfeedingbasics.org/cgi-
> bin/deliver.cgi/content/Anatomy/com_minerals.html

Interestingly enough (at least to me), after I typed in the phrase above
about Australia, I did a Google search on:

Australia milk sodium

and got several references, many about human breast milk. I selected
one, which expressed concern about sodium levels being too *low* for
premature babies. There is considerable risk to having a sodium level
too low, at all ages. They did a study, which found that mothers of
premature babies had a higher sodium content in their breast milk, at
least at first, than mothers of normal babies, so that made it less
necessary to worry about sodium supplementation for premature babies.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Jun 2, 2:23*pm, Landon > wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:40:26 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 2, 11:49*am, Landon > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >==
> >> >That is your "opinion" also...you have no proof that I am full of
> >> >"shit"...27 people in one study done in 1993...come on...give me a
> >> >break. Perhaps a study of 2700 people would give cause for some
> >> >certainty in the assessment of salt and its influence on asthma.
> >> >==
>
> >> My proof that you are full of shit is the testing itself. Disprove it
> >> with facts and science and you'll show that you are not full of shit.
>
> >> Until then...
>
> >==
> >From Medscape Today:
> <snip>
> >Alternatively, dietary sodium MAY NOT have an effect on asthma in the
> >general population.
>
> You've shown a report that dietary sodium MAY not have the effect that
> the study in question has proven. To disprove the study in question,
> you must first disprove their test results that show the end results
> they've found. To show only *another* study that states that they MAY
> be wrong, isn't proof, it's conjecture.
>
> From what you've shown, none of their tests are disproved.
>
> Alternatively, as concluded by the quote above, dietary sodium MAY
> have an effect on asthma in the general population.
>
> Had it concluded with "This study proves beyond doubt that dietary
> sodium does not have an effect on asthma in the general population.",
> then your argument would hold water.
>
> That's not the case however.
>
> Again, you fail to substantiate your claims.
>
> State precisely what parts of their testing is in error or
> inconclusive. Failure to do so will show that you state only your
> opinion that *they must be wrong because you want them to be wrong*.
>
> I mean no malice in saying that you're full of shit. It's a status
> first introduced to this argument from you. My believe is that the
> test results are accurate and that if either side of the argument is,
> in your own words, "full of shit", then it's you who are so.
>
> I have neither the medical training nor expertise in the field of
> research to claim an absolute in either direction. I fall back on the
> full disclosure of testing methods and results that have been
> presented in my favor, and the lack of that presentation in your own
> favor.
>
> I examined the testing methods presented in the report in question and
> found no flaws that would show it to be in error.
>
> Perhaps you saw precise flaws that I missed.
>
> I would love to examine the evidence you've discovered.
>
> I await that evidence. Thus far, you've failed to present it.

==
I am not prepared to investigate this further, not do I admit that I
have failed in any way. As far as I am concerned NO proof has been
given that the intake of common salt influences the outcome of asthma
treatment in the general population. No such finding has ever been
transmitted to me in any form by my specialist in asthma treatment and
I will take his advice and counsel as being sufficient, at least for
now.

I'm glad you bear no malice as I certainly do not as well.
==

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
wrote:
>==
>I am not prepared to investigate this further, not do I admit that I
>have failed in any way. As far as I am concerned NO proof has been
>given that the intake of common salt influences the outcome of asthma
>treatment in the general population. No such finding has ever been
>transmitted to me in any form by my specialist in asthma treatment and
>I will take his advice and counsel as being sufficient, at least for
>now.
>
>I'm glad you bear no malice as I certainly do not as well.
>==
Why not present this study to your specialist and see what he thinks
about it? It can't hurt and reducing the amount of salt you eat can't
hurt you either.

On Jun 2, 4:51*pm, Landon > wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Roy >
> wrote:>==
> >I am not prepared to investigate this further, not do I admit that I
> >have failed in any way. As far as I am concerned NO proof has been
> >given that the intake of common salt influences the outcome of asthma
> >treatment in the general population. No such finding has ever been
> >transmitted to me in any form by my specialist in asthma treatment and
> >I will take *his advice and counsel as being sufficient, at least for
> >now.
>
> >I'm glad you bear no malice as I certainly do not as well.
> >==
>
> Why not present this study to your specialist and see what he thinks
> about it? It can't hurt and reducing the amount of salt you eat can't
> hurt you either.

==
Good point, I will mention it to him and see what he says. As far as
my salt intake is concerned, my blood pressure is within the normal
range for my age group and my regular doctor is not concerned
whatsoever.
==