# We're drowning in milk gone bad!!!



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

StatsCan reported today that yogurt and cottage cheese production is way up, by tons: The Daily — Dairy statistics, July 2017

I shouldn't make fun of it, I'm sure there are many whose business decisions are influenced by such numbers. It just seems weird to see a news-release about yogurt and cottage cheese production. But _somebody_ has to keep track of it, right?


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2017)

They need to find more folds to tuck that crap into.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Happier cows?


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

There is a shortage of boot laces and victory gin though.


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

I can see that being logical....there is a growing health-conscious food sector, with yogurt and cottage cheese a big staple


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2017)

Dairy is toxic. It is not good for you.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Player99 said:


> Dairy is toxic. It is not good for you.


Nonsense


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Player99 said:


> Dairy is toxic. It is not good for you.


I dunno Richard. There are an awful lot of boobies in the world. That oughta tell us something about the toxicity vs necessity of dairy products. And I say this as someone who developed lactose intolerance later in life. 

At least if we're gonna find increased production of dairy products, let it be yogurt and cottage cheese, instead of 34%BF cheese. Canadians get the largest share of their fat intake from cheese, apparently. So 2% yogurt with "good flora" in it ain't such a bad thing by comparison.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2017)

mhammer said:


> I dunno Richard. There are an awful lot of boobies in the world. That oughta tell us something about the toxicity vs necessity of dairy products. And I say this as someone who developed lactose intolerance later in life.
> 
> At least if we're gonna find increased production of dairy products, let it be yogurt and cottage cheese, instead of 34%BF cheese. Canadians get the largest share of their fat intake from cheese, apparently. So 2% yogurt with "good flora" in it ain't such a bad thing by comparison.


Dairy boobs are for calfs of the cow variety to suckle on, not grown men and women. Even children get way to much animal hormones not present in human milk. Cow milk is designed to grow big cows, not humans. Then there are the toxins, which are then concentrated to even higher levels when milk is turned into butter, cheese etc. The dairy industry is a farce. The products are bad for human health, and are promoted by govt to be eaten for the profit of the dairy industry not for the general health of the people.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Seems to me that I've heard this spiel before....


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2017)




----------



## capnjim (Aug 19, 2011)

Cottage cheese should not be allowed to have "cheese" in its name. Its a disgrace to cheese and has absolutely no business being in the cheese family.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Player99 said:


> Dairy is toxic. It is not good for you.


[RANT] To apply this overgeneralized statement to everyone has not solid basis in fact. Show me the collective peer reviewed repeatable scientific studies done on the safety and adverse reactions to dairy products done over the last 20 years or so to verify this. Collections of anecdotal incidents and unverifiable scientifically flawed studies mean squat. Just because there are some people who cannot digest milk products properly and a small percent of the population* have adverse reactions is no basis for stating that milk products for majority of the population are toxic - just a bunch of reactionary crap. Same for aspartame - it causes cancer - A review of over 200 scientific does not support this. A few people start crying wolf and it makes it into the tabloids and before you know it people are believing this shit that has no verifiable basis in fact. _MILK IS TOXIC !! ASPARTAME CAUSES CANCER!! _People who fall for this garbage might as well believe the earth is flat and the moon is made of Kraft Singles. Geeezuz! [/RANT] *I am aware that people of African origin have more problems digesting unfermented dairy product.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Player99 said:


> Dairy is toxic. It is not good for you.


It's still nowhere near as deadly as dihydrogen monoxide ie HYDRIC ACID, a solvent which is in some of our junk foods, kills thousands every year, and our government does NOTHING to stop it, because it profits from its production.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

Player99 said:


> Dairy is toxic. It is not good for you.


I don'no I try and lick a warm milky tit at least once every day, keeps me happy.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2017)

Robert1950 said:


> [RANT] To apply this overgeneralized statement to everyone has not solid basis in fact. Show me the collective peer reviewed repeatable scientific studies done on the safety and adverse reactions to dairy products done over the last 20 years or so to verify this. Collections of anecdotal incidents and unverifiable scientifically flawed studies mean squat. Just because there are some people who cannot digest milk products properly and a small percent of the population* have adverse reactions is no basis for stating that milk products for majority of the population are toxic - just a bunch of reactionary crap. Same for aspartame - it causes cancer - A review of over 200 scientific does not support this. A few people start crying wolf and it makes it into the tabloids and before you know it people are believing this shit that has no verifiable basis in fact. _MILK IS TOXIC !! ASPARTAME CAUSES CANCER!! _People who fall for this garbage might as well believe the earth is flat and the moon is made of Kraft Singles. Geeezuz! [/RANT] *I am aware that people of African origin have more problems digesting unfermented dairy product.


You don't want to know. You want to deny the true causes heart disease and stroke. Namely animal based diet. Watch the documentary Eating You Alive (One bite at a time). It will all become apparent.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2017)




----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

@Player99 Did you have anything to do with this?


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

I agree that the amount of fat, dairy & cheese most people consume is not good for our health. 

not to mention donuts and 18% Tim Horton's cream: hey make it a DOUBLE DOUBLE!!

lack of exercise doesn't help either

but hey, people are gonna do what they wanna do, not my place to dictate.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Player99 said:


> You don't want to know. You want to deny the true causes heart disease and stroke. Namely animal based diet. Watch the documentary Eating You Alive (One bite at a time). It will all become apparent.


Now I'm SURE that I've heard all of this nonsense before. Seriously, you need some new material.


----------



## Scottone (Feb 10, 2006)

Player99 said:


> Dairy is toxic. It is not good for you.


Its certainly not good for me. I was having some digestive system issues a couple years back and based on some research, decided to try giving up dairy. After a short period of time, the symptoms went away and my health has improved considerably. Might be coincidence, but I'm not going back.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

My wife started working in the food safety branch at Health Canada a few months ago, where she is part of a team that has to comb the literature that informs policy and regulations. So, company X wants to add substance Y to product Z, and Health Canada has to render a judgment. She regularly comes home surprised and exasperated by regulations imposed in other jurisdictions that are informed by poorly-designed studies with sketchy results. That includes both regulations that are harsher and more restrictive, and regulations that are more lax, than is compelled by the research.

Scott, I was surprised to learn some time back (on Quirks and Quarks, no less) that age-variation in lactose intolerance varies across racial groups. Tolerance for lactose is universal in infancy; boobies are there for a reason. What varies across groups is whether tolerance remains, and when it potentially disappears. For many east Asian groups, inability to properly digest lactose sets in pretty early, which is why you'll never see anything cheese-based or in a cream sauce at a Chinese or Japanese, Thai, or Vietnamese restaurant. For other groups, ability to digest lactose sticks around through adolescence, but can wane in adulthood, while for others, they can blissfully cheese out for the rest of their lives. My late father spent the last decade and a half of his life chowing down assorted pills to tackle his "stomach problems", But the poor SOB made himself the same sandwich for lunch every work day: a coupla slices of cheese on bread. Nobody ever made the connection because we all assumed, including the doctor who dispensed the pills, that you either were or weren't lactose intolerant from early on, and that was it. The idea that a person could hang in for 40 years and then lose the capacity went over everyone's head.

When I finally understood that I might be having an issue with dairy a decade and a half ago, I cut out dairy products, felt much better (I was now reading _Guitar Player_ on the bus instead of on the throne), and promptly lost 10lbs. Happily, Chapman's makes lactose-free no-sugar-added ice cream, and once in a while the lactose-free milk goes on sale (I thrilled myself with a bowl of Shreddies the other day; been a long time). A bit of cream in my coffee, and an omelet or a lightly-cheesed homemade pizza now and then, are fine. But I know if I cheese out I'm gonna pay for it dearly later on. Fear-of-pain is an effective dietary regulator.

And, for the record, cottage cheese IS cheese. Same way that paneer and feta is. It just isn't squeezed into a block.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> My wife started working in the food safety branch at Health Canada a few months ago, where she is part of a team that has to comb the literature that informs policy and regulations. So, company X wants to add substance Y to product Z, and Health Canada has to render a judgment. She regularly comes home surprised and exasperated by regulations imposed in other jurisdictions that are informed by poorly-designed studies with sketchy results. That includes both regulations that are harsher and more restrictive, and regulations that are more lax, than is compelled by the research.
> 
> Scott, I was surprised to learn some time back (on Quirks and Quarks, no less) that age-variation in lactose intolerance varies across racial groups. Tolerance for lactose is universal in infancy; boobies are there for a reason. What varies across groups is whether tolerance remains, and when it potentially disappears. For many east Asian groups, inability to properly digest lactose sets in pretty early, which is why you'll never see anything cheese-based or in a cream sauce at a Chinese or Japanese, Thai, or Vietnamese restaurant. For other groups, ability to digest lactose sticks around through adolescence, but can wane in adulthood, while for others, they can blissfully cheese out for the rest of their lives. *My late father spent the last decade and a half of his life chowing down assorted pills to tackle his "stomach problems", But the poor SOB made himself the same sandwich for lunch every work day: a coupla slices of cheese on bread. Nobody ever made the connection because we all assumed, including the doctor who dispensed the pills, that you either were or weren't lactose intolerant from early on, and that was it*. The idea that a person could hang in for 40 years and then lose the capacity went over everyone's head.
> 
> ...


re: bolded, how do you know it wasn't the gluten from the bread?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Fair point. But, given that I have all of his health problems (and a mole in the exact same spot as he and his dad), and gluten is not any sort of issue with me, I'm leaning towards lactose as the culprit in his case. Of course, that guy would start farting at the sight of a glass of water.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2017)

JBFairthorne said:


> Now I'm SURE that I've heard all of this nonsense before. Seriously, you need some new material.


Sure. Attack the messenger. Are you a Trump supporter too?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Player99 said:


> Sure. *Attack the messenger*. Are you a Trump supporter too?


ironic.
what if he is anyways? it doesn't mean the shit you've posted here still isn't a little nuts. "toxic" lol.

post some more YT vids of some guy giving a speech in order to sell some diet books. its got to be 100% the truth.


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

Player99 said:


> Sure. Attack the messenger. Are you a Trump supporter too?


The dairy industry is an economical powerhouse. Getting government agencies and health authorities to say anything bad against it is a death knell for all sorts of funding and advertising dollars.
Getting anyone to look seriously into the health issues related to dairy is an uphill battle, we've been conditioned to believe dairy is a top choice for calcium and that it's a natural product and therefore good for you.
People have to do their own research and discover for themselves all of the problems with dairy products and the industry in general.
My family stopped dairy a number of years ago for various reasons. We've found better alternatives from a health perspective like almond and cashew based "milk". Whether this is sustainable is unknown but it's where we are at right now.
Btw, for those who don't know, cashews are super amazing. My wife makes a cheesecake with cashews and various "cheese" sauces that I cannot tell the difference from the dairy based variety.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Fair point. But, given that I have all of his health problems (and a mole in the exact same spot as he and his dad), and gluten is not any sort of issue with me, I'm leaning towards lactose as the culprit in his case. Of course, that guy would start farting at the sight of a glass of water.


I think my point was some conclusions in your post were surprisingly flawed...you attribute the stomach issues to one item purely based on speculation, when it could have been many others. Your own weight loss could simply have resulted from caloric deficiency when things like ice cream, were removed, etc. if not replaced with other items of similar caloric value. I think you know what I'm getting at, Dr.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2017)

Diablo said:


> ironic.
> what if he is anyways? it doesn't mean the shit you've posted here still isn't a little nuts. "toxic" lol.
> 
> post some more YT vids of some guy giving a speech in order to sell some diet books. its got to be 100% the truth.


 Cool story brooooooohammmmmm.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2017)

LanceT said:


> The dairy industry is an economical powerhouse. Getting government agencies and health authorities to say anything bad against it is a death knell for all sorts of funding and advertising dollars.
> Getting anyone to look seriously into the health issues related to dairy is an uphill battle, we've been conditioned to believe dairy is a top choice for calcium and that it's a natural product and therefore good for you.
> People have to do their own research and discover for themselves all of the problems with dairy products and the industry in general.
> My family stopped dairy a number of years ago for various reasons. We've found better alternatives from a health perspective like almond and cashew based "milk". Whether this is sustainable is unknown but it's where we are at right now.
> Btw, for those who don't know, cashews are super amazing. My wife makes a cheesecake with cashews and various "cheese" sauces that I cannot tell the difference from the dairy based variety.


Thank you for this post.


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

Player99 said:


> Thank you for this post.


The truth sucks.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Diablo said:


> I think my point was some conclusions in your post were surprisingly flawed...you attribute the stomach issues to one item purely based on speculation, when it could have been many others. Your own weight loss could simply have resulted from caloric deficiency when things like ice cream, were removed, etc. if not replaced with other items of similar caloric value. I think you know what I'm getting at, Dr.


No contradiction or flawed inferences whatsoever. 1) Nobody even considered the possibility of later-life lactose intolerance in my dad's case. Whether it was or wasn't the source of his issues is not the issue. rather, it wasn't even brought up for discussion. 2) Of _course_, dropping cheese from my own diet reduced my fat intake, and consequently my weight, in addition to my logged time in digestive anguish. As I noted earlier, for many Canadians their largest source of fat intake is not meat but cheese. So, my _objective _was to reduce the anguish from lactose intolerance. The unintended _perk_ was that less cheese meant less fat. Trust me, I don't starve, (although I am now down to the lowest weight I have been in 45 years, and best blood sugar readings in 8 years).

In all of this brouhaha over greater yogurt and cottage cheese production, and supply management, I am suddenly reminded of the late Chris Farley's "motivational speaker" character, Matt Foley, who would rant about living in a "van by the river" and subsisting on "government cheese". The cheese, of course, _was_ provided by government sources, and was a way of making productive use of milk surpluses and supplementing food stamps, for those on welfare. At the same time, cheese being a major source of fat, and America experiencing an obesity epidemic, you have to wonder if what was intended to be a win-win is maybe not working out as well as initially thought.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Player99 said:


> Cool story brooooooohammmmmm.


clearly, someone we should all be listening to.


----------



## Scottone (Feb 10, 2006)

LanceT said:


> Btw, for those who don't know, cashews are super amazing. My wife makes a cheesecake with cashews and various "cheese" sauces that I cannot tell the difference from the dairy based variety.


True...those cashew cheese sauces are pretty good.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

P99, people are still waiting for your scientific peer reviewed studies.

Do I think people overdo it with dairy? Totally. Is it toxic? Not for most people around here


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2017)

On the documentary Eating You Alive, one doctor calls cheese the absolute worst of the worst from the animal food shelf. Concentrated heart clogging fats. Concentrated environmental toxins like dioxin. Concentrated cow hormones.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2017)

Budda said:


> P99, people are still waiting for your scientific peer reviewed studies.
> 
> Do I think people overdo it with dairy? Totally. Is it toxic? Not for most people around here


Just watch the doc Eating You Alive. It's all in there. If you are interested watch What The Health as well.

Years ago I was talking with the doctor/researcher that was prominent in proving hydrogenated oils are bad. He called them a *"30 year poisoning"*.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Player99 said:


> Just watch the doc Eating You Alive. It's all in there. If you are interested watch What The Health as well.



Neither of which are peer reviewed academic studies are they? Can you provide any peer reviewed academic studies to support your position?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Player99 said:


> Dairy is toxic. It is not good for you.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Robert1950 said:


> [RANT] To apply this overgeneralized statement to everyone has not solid basis in fact. Show me the collective peer reviewed repeatable scientific studies done on the safety and adverse reactions to dairy products done over the last 20 years or so to verify this. Collections of anecdotal incidents and unverifiable scientifically flawed studies mean squat. Just because there are some people who cannot digest milk products properly and a small percent of the population* have adverse reactions is no basis for stating that milk products for majority of the population are toxic - just a bunch of reactionary crap. Same for aspartame - it causes cancer - A review of over 200 scientific does not support this. A few people start crying wolf and it makes it into the tabloids and before you know it people are believing this shit that has no verifiable basis in fact. _MILK IS TOXIC !! ASPARTAME CAUSES CANCER!! _People who fall for this garbage might as well believe the earth is flat and the moon is made of Kraft Singles. Geeezuz! [/RANT] *I am aware that people of African origin have more problems digesting unfermented dairy product.



And vaccinations cause Autism........................


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Diablo said:


> It's still nowhere near as deadly as dihydrogen monoxide ie HYDRIC ACID, a solvent which is in some of our junk foods, kills thousands every year, and our government does NOTHING to stop it, because it profits from its production.




Just in case anyone reads the post above and doesn't get what is being said, I thought this should be posted as a public service announcement:

Dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)




----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2017)




----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Cheese Whiz scares me.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

butterknucket said:


> Cheese Whiz scares me.



I ain't gonna lie, I sometimes eat Cheese Wiz.


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

colchar said:


> Neither of which are peer reviewed academic studies are they? Can you provide any peer reviewed academic studies to support your position?


There may not be any available. It's a contentious issue and fact plays a small part in it. The dairy industry is a massive economic machine, peer reviews generally need to be initiated by a third party to keep bias out. Not sure this has happened.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

colchar said:


> I ain't gonna lie, I sometimes eat Cheese Wiz.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

LanceT said:


> There may not be any available.


So you've taken a position that has no evidence whatsoever to back it up? Seems reasonable.




> It's a contentious issue and fact plays a small part in it.



You're right in one sense - fact plays a small part ofr the anti-dairy crowd.




> The dairy industry is a massive economic machine, peer reviews generally need to be initiated by a third party to keep bias out. Not sure this has happened.



Wait, what? So the dairy industry controls university research?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


>



I swear, there is a jar of it in my fridge right now.

And in the interest of full disclosure, it is the large 1kg size.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Let me get this straight:

Dairy is toxic and we shouldn't eat it.

Meat is toxic and we shouldn't eat it. Well, unless you subscribe to Atkins - and there's lots of 'proof' on the internet that this diet is good for you.

Vegetables are toxic (GMO'd, sprayed with whatever, unless you can 'trust' growers that are only out to make a buck) and we shouldn't eat them.

Grains are toxic (a few people are celiacs so it must be bad for everyone, right?) and we shouldn't eat them.

All this can be proven on the internet.

So how does not eating anything work out? Probably not great in the long run. 

Nah, what will kill is believing crap you see or read on the internet, from some quack 'doctor' pumping another fricken health book. I go with empirical data - the fact that people have been eating this stuff for 1000's of years and it got us to where we are (the ability to invent computers, an internet and the platform for said quacks to pump their wares to unsuspecting gullibles out there).


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

colchar said:


> So you've taken a position that has no evidence whatsoever to back it up? Seems reasonable


Never said lack of evidence, I think the evidence is, well, evident but only if you want to look.



colchar said:


> You're right in one sense - fact plays a small part ofr the anti-dairy crowd.


Fact is scarce in any contentious issue. Dairy, non-dairy, whatever. Often it comes down to what one wants to believe regardless of facts or proof.



colchar said:


> Wait, what? So the dairy industry controls university research?


Likely there's some funding as a minimum. I don't know for certain and really have little interest if it happens or not. Don't know if you were around in the 80's when there were "milk runs" in high school so the dairy industry certainly had a presence and I can only presume they continue to do so.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

LanceT said:


> Fact is scarce in any contentious issue.


Um no, it isn't.




> Likely there's some funding as a minimum. I don't know for certain and really have little interest if it happens or not. Don't know if you were around in the 80's when there were "milk runs" in high school so the dairy industry certainly had a presence and I can only presume they continue to do so.



Milk in schools back in the '80s has nothing to do with university research into dairy products. There is all kinds of evidence to support the benefits of dairy, there is no peer reviewed research to support the claim that it is bad for us. In other words, the belief that it is bad for us is on the same level as the belief that vaccines cause Autism.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> Let me get this straight:
> 
> Dairy is toxic and we shouldn't eat it.
> 
> ...



Soylent Green is an option.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

colchar said:


> I ain't gonna lie, I sometimes eat Cheese Wiz.


Nuthin' wrong with it. Just don't confuse it with cheese, and use in moderation (it's a little heavy on the sodium content)


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

colchar said:


> Um no, it isn't.


Um yes it is.



colchar said:


> Milk in schools back in the '80s has nothing to do with university research into dairy products. There is all kinds of evidence to support the benefits of dairy, there is no peer reviewed research to support the claim that it is bad for us. In other words, the belief that it is bad for us is on the same level as the belief that vaccines cause Autism.


Milk in schools is a precursor to university funding. No evidence do I have however. Perhaps you could initiate a paper.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It wasn't my intent to provoke a knock-down drag-out argument over the scientific justification for consumption or rejection of dairy products (specifically those coming from dairy cows). Not that I can control any of that at this point anyway. But...

1) Even where any of us has a particular interest in the topic, scientific conclusions are best come to on the basis of the _preponderance of evidence_. And unless someone has been holding out on us, I suspect the best any of us have is a study here or there that influenced our beliefs, with nobody having a stack of papers they've combed through, or even a solid meta-analysis to substitute for the stack-o-papers, in one direction or the other. So I think all accusations or wholesale claims in one direction or the other should be kept to a minimum.

2) Human nutritional needs are diverse, so many different things get recommended at one time or another, because they contain some component that is hard to find, or hard to find in digestible form, or hard to find without being accompanied by much less desirable components, in some other food.

3) It is hard to imagine a foodstuff, except for maybe water, where there is no evidence of problems for select groups of individuals. Everything we consume poses a challenge to our digestion, of greater or lesser degrees, and brings the bad along with the good. Just about everything we consume has problematic ingredients combined with desirable ones. Heck, even vitamins - ostensibly a "pure" nutritive substance - comes bound up in other ingredients to render a pill form. Apart from those folks in very desperate situations who have a choice between nothing and some highly restricted diet (e.g., rice in a refugee camp), one rarely sees recommendations for selective consumption of any single foodstuff. Overconsumption of anything, be it dairy, or red meat, or cashews, or bananas, blueberries, or glutinous starches, is contraindicated. So, everything is out to get you just a little bit. Moderation in all things.

In that light, Michael Pollan's philosophy of eating makes good calm sense: eat real food, not too much, and mostly plants. Yogurt and cottage cheese are not plants, so I try not to consume too much.


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

mhammer said:


> Nuthin' wrong with it. Just don't confuse it with cheese, and use in moderation (it's a little heavy on the sodium content)


Isn't Cheez Whiz considered a form of plastic too?


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

mhammer said:


> It wasn't my intent to provoke a knock-down drag-out argument


You knew all along this would be the result


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

LanceT said:


> Isn't Cheez Whiz considered a form of plastic too?


It is "processed cheese spread", and don't you fergit it buddy. If there is anything to be concerned with, it is more likely in terms of sodium content, food coloring, and preservatives than anything dairy related. Again, just don't forget about real cheese, or confuse it with real cheese.

Not all that different than debates we've had about coffee. Most would prefer a decent cup of fresh brewed coffee to a heaping teaspoon of instant, but sometimes instant hits the spot. As long as you remember there's something better out there.

Nutritional content can be found here: http://www.kraftcanada.com/products/00068100010206

I expect to find out plenty more about problematic food ingredients from my wife in the months and years ahead. I've already heard more about parabens and parabins than I care to know, and wouldn't be surprised if she starts regaling me with studies about edible marijuana products over the next year. Interesting how food and drug safety can overlap sometimes.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

mhammer said:


> It wasn't my intent to provoke a knock-down drag-out argument over the scientific justification for consumption or rejection of dairy products (specifically those coming from dairy cows).


hold on, wait a minute...there are dairy products that _don't_ come from cows?


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Sorry guys


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

I've come to the conclusion that life increases the risk of death.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

If they got boobies, cheezy, they make milk. Now, whether anyone _wants_ that milk is a whole nother thing. I've had goat's milk, and I've had products made from sheep's milk, but I've never had the exotic types like camel's milk. I doubt many are licking their lips for pig's milk or dog milk. And I doubt many live through the process of obtaining moose or bear milk.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

mhammer said:


> If they got boobies, cheezy, they make milk. Now, whether anyone _wants_ that milk is a whole nother thing. I've had goat's milk, and I've had products made from sheep's milk, but I've never had the exotic types like camel's milk. I doubt many are licking their lips for pig's milk or dog milk. And I doubt many live through the process of obtaining moose or bear milk.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2017)




----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

butterknucket said:


> I've come to the conclusion that life insurance on a spouse increases the risk of their death.


Expanded for you.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

How Growth in Dairy Is Affecting the Environment


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2017)

colchar said:


> Neither of which are peer reviewed academic studies are they? Can you provide any peer reviewed academic studies to support your position?


 It's a documentary. Watch it or don't. If you do watch it you will see professionals explain it all very concisely to you... They have peer reviewed studies they refer to.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

This guys entire argument is based on promoting a Michael Moore produced film on healthy eating. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2017)




----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

laristotle said:


>


Clearly suffering from autism brought on by vaccination.


----------



## dcole (Oct 8, 2008)

mhammer said:


> And, for the record, cottage cheese IS cheese. Same way that paneer and feta is. It just isn't squeezed into a block.


And these are both cars:


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Kumis is pretty good. Havn't had any for a while tho. Never got into poutine tho. Fries and gravy and a cheeseburger yes, but poutine just doesn't do it. Neither does cottage cheese. A fried cheese and bacon sandwich does. Gouda and cheddar on rye bread and fried in the bacon fat. I just made myself hungry so I'm going to make myself one of those.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

dcole said:


> And these are both cars:










This is too. It's all personal choice tho the red one is the cottage cheese


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2017)

I would drive that Gremlin.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

butterknucket said:


> I've come to the conclusion that life increases the risk of death.


Perhaps if we didn't eat we would live forever.......................


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Player99 said:


> It's a documentary.



That doesn't mean that it is factual.





> Watch it or don't.



I won't waste my time with that. Give me some real, peer reviewed research and we can talk.




> If you do watch it you will see professionals explain it all very concisely to you...



For self-serving purposes no doubt.





> They have peer reviewed studies they refer to.



In that case I will take a look at it this weekend. Since I am an academic I will have access to any studies they mention so I will look them up to determine their legitimacy. But as usually happens on this topic, their allegedly peer reviewed studies are likely to be anything but.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

LanceT said:


> Um yes it is.


Good grief.

If you think facts are scarce in any contentious issue then you are horrifyingly naive.

There are countless contentious issues that are not lacking for facts.





> Milk in schools is a precursor to university funding.


Wait, what?!?! So milk in elementary schools is a precursor to university funding? That is patently ridiculous and demonstrates that you know little to nothing about university funding.




> No evidence do I have however.


No kidding.




> Perhaps you could initiate a paper.



Not my field.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

mhammer said:


> 1) Even where any of us has a particular interest in the topic, scientific conclusions are best come to on the basis of the _preponderance of evidence_. And unless someone has been holding out on us, I suspect the best any of us have is a study here or there that influenced our beliefs, with nobody having a stack of papers they've combed through, or even a solid meta-analysis to substitute for the stack-o-papers, in one direction or the other.


I would be willing to bet that such an analysis _is_ available.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

mhammer said:


> Nutritional content can be found here: http://www.kraftcanada.com/products/00068100010206




Cheese Wiz has nutritional content?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


> hold on, wait a minute...there are dairy products that _don't_ come from cows?



Ever heard of goat's milk?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

colchar said:


> Cheese Wiz has nutritional content?


Okay, let me rephrase: _a list of what it probably has in it_. If any of it provides nutrition, as opposed to mere gustatory thrills, that is up to the end-user.

To its credit, it must be _applied_ with a piece of cutlery, and not merely squirted out like some sort of dairy-based insulation foam. But I think you'll agree that it generally tastes better when preceded by the dulcet tones of Bruce Marsh detailing a recipe, somewhere in the second commercial break of _Bonanza_.

Now I'm doubting myself. Did he do Cheez Whiz too, or was it only Velveeta?


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

mhammer said:


> To its credit, it must be _applied_ with a piece of cutlery, and not merely squirted out like some sort of dairy-based insulation foam.


Thanks for my morning laugh. 
You have such excellent descriptive writing skills!


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2017)

colchar said:


> I won't waste my time with that. Give me some real, peer reviewed research and we can talk.


Don't hold your breath.
I tried that too with the same 'watch this, watch that' response.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

@Player99 Guide to interweb arguing.

If they ask you to show some research, respond with watch this random Youtube clip(s) with some Dr Oz type quacks pushing their agenda.
If they respond with something of a viable argument, respond with "Cool story brooooooohammmmmm."
If they hurt your feelings in anyway with their response, accuse them of supporting Trump, being an American and threaten to tell on them.
If the real hard-ons for debate and arguing show up, draw a line in the sand and tell them to watch the clips again, then disappear/......


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

colchar said:


> If you think facts are scarce in any contentious issue then you are horrifyingly naive.


I am sometimes naive though besides the point. Perhaps I should have stated facts are sometimes twisted in debates. Better?



colchar said:


> Wait, what?!?! So milk in elementary schools is a precursor to university funding? That is patently ridiculous and demonstrates that you know little to nothing about university funding.


I truly have no idea but could believe that it happens. Any peer reviews to prove that it doesn't?



colchar said:


> Not my field.


Interweb debating is though and that's all this is. Try again.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2017)

vadsy said:


> @Player99 Guide to interweb arguing.
> 
> If they ask you to show some research, respond with watch this random Youtube clips(s) with some Dr Oz type quacks pushing their agenda.
> If they respond with something of a viable argument, respond with "Cool story brooooooohammmmmm."
> ...


This is absolute nonsense. No peer review. Broooooohammmmm.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2017)

here's one peer review.
I agree with @vadsy 's assessment of the facts that he stated.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2017)

laristotle said:


> here's one peer review.
> I agree with @vadsy 's assessment of the facts that he stated.


So now you are quoting a statistic of one... So like Trump.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2017)

I happen to be the first peer review, that's all.

edit- I didn't quote anyone/thing.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Hey! HEY!! This is MY thread. If you boys can't get along nicely, I'm sending you home!

But while I'm here let us defuse with a clarification. Concerns about dairy products are principally about what gets _added_ to them (intentionally or coincidentally), as well as what may not be in them. Cow's milk is not "toxic" ( Toxicity - Wikipedia ). Should dairy farmers provide their cattle with hormones or drugs intended to optimize cattle health or boost production, THOSE things might pose health risks of undetermined magnitude, but milk, per se, from an untreated cow, is, as they say "safe as milk". However, there one is really addressing dairy products as a potential _vehicle_ for something else (analogous to the concern several years ago about spraying alar on apples; apples themselves being every bit as benign as milk). Milk, per se, has no known toxicities.

When it comes to children, milk and formula substitutes lack the immunity-enhancing properties of human breast milk. That doesn't necessarily make milk "bad" for children, and certainly not toxic, just not as beneficial as the normal alternative. But if something prevents one from supplying the alternative, growing humans still need calcium and other substances for development; true of both human children and bovine children.

In general, though, terms like "toxic" should be avoided unless used properly. The same way that the term "proof" or "scientifically proven" should not be used haphazardly. If folks want to talk about "evidence of" something, or "potential risks" or "recognized benefits", fine. But it is best to avoid explicit expressions of absolute certainty. There is so much we might_ think_ we know, but which we don't really know as well as we believe we do.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

mhammer said:


> There is so much we might_ think_ we know, but which we don't really know as well as we believe we do.


I am beginning not to trust anything I think I know. Maybe that is part of aging?
I like to think it is possibly due to increased wisdom (whatever that is).


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

greco said:


> I am beginning not to trust anything I think I know. Maybe that is part of aging?
> I like to think it is possibly due to increased wisdom (whatever that is).


I don't trust anything anyone else says they know.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

greco said:


> I am beginning not to trust anything I think I know. Maybe that is part of aging?
> I like to think it is possibly due to increased wisdom (whatever that is).


Absolutely <sic>. Most thought-out models of wisdom will include awareness of the uncertainties of life as a part of what people across time and cultures point to when they label someone as "wise". It's the absolute dead certainty of some folks in important roles, past and present, that classifies them as "unwise" in my eyes. But then, I'm only basing that on their public persona. There might be stuff behind the scenes we don't know about.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2017)

mhammer said:


> Hey! HEY!! This is MY thread. If you boys can't get along nicely, I'm sending you home!


Please accept my apologies Mark.


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2017)

You guys are cheesy. Fake cheese.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Drink maybe a glass of milk a month so it shouldn't matter much.

Cheese on the other hand? Well cheese is like bacon glue ............................ and my bacon is constantly falling apart.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

laristotle said:


> Please accept my apologies Mark.


Okay, you can stay. Just make sure you clean up after yourself.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)




----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

LanceT said:


> I am sometimes naive though besides the point. Perhaps I should have stated facts are sometimes twisted in debates. Better?



Yes, that is perfectly true.





> I truly have no idea but could believe that it happens.


If you have mo idea then you cannot make the claim that it does.




> Any peer reviews to prove that it doesn't?


That is not something that would be peer reviewed.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

mhammer said:


> Concerns about dairy products are principally about what gets _added_ to them (intentionally or coincidentally), as well as what may not be in them.


Not always. I have seen these debates before and many in the anti dairy crowd claim we shouldn't even be consuming raw milk.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Here is something I don't understand and maybe someone has some sort of answer.

Here in Canada we run a supply management system on our dairies, which gives a quota of milk to dairy farmers that they are allowed to produce.

We import about $133 million dollars worth of dairy products from the USA alone.

That does not make sense to me. Why wouldn't they allow dairy farmers to produce more milk rather than rely on imports. Or allow more dairy farmers? Seems our supply management system is actually helping foreign producers. I mean, if you are going to "manage the supply" why not manage it in a way that needs are met? If they upped the quota, or allowed more farms, then the cost per unit would drop due to scale of production. The farmers could make more, the consumer would pay less. 

Can anyone explain this to me?


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

We actually pay the farmers more than market price, it's part of what the Americans are mad at us about as part of NAFTA negotiations. I also think we don't use all we produce. The last thing we need is more dairy farmers, but if we don't do the subsidies we'll NEED more because a bunch we have now will go broke. Or we'll end up importing a ton more dairy, which also isn't really desirable at least to me.

Catch 22


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

colchar said:


> Not always. I have seen these debates before and many in the anti dairy crowd claim we shouldn't even be consuming raw milk.


Their loss.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

keto said:


> I also think we don't use all we produce.


Seriously? Then why do we need to import so much? Now I am really confused.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Keep in mind, there may be some specialty products - specific cheeses and I don't know what else - that we don't produce here, but do import. Is your figure $133M per year? Really not _that much _in the big picture.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Keep in mind, there may be some specialty products - specific cheeses and I don't know what else - that we don't produce here, but do import. Is your figure $133M per year? Really not _that much _in the big picture.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

keto said:


> Keep in mind, there may be some specialty products - specific cheeses and I don't know what else - that we don't produce here, but do import. Is your figure $133M per year? Really not _that much _in the big picture.


Yeah, got the amount from The Globe I think. You make a logical point. Still, wouldn't there be someone here that would fill that niche? Of course, after taxes, would it be profitable? (see what I did there?)


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

One of my wife's former co-workers puts together a compilation of comics and witty posters every Thursday morning, that she mails out to us. Many of them revolve around coffee, and there are always Dilbert strips. But today's included the following quote:

_Somebody left a grocery list in this cart that said..."Cheese and shit like that". So my soul-mate is out there.

_


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

The hilarious thing to me is the use of the word TOXIC <cue scary Halloween movie music>.
for one, its an exaggeration...terms like irritant-for some, allergen etc would be more appropriate.

for another, colchar pointed out above that my water joke earlier was likely missed by some, so I'm being less subtle, but this will blow your mind, wanna know what else causes cell death? OXYGEN! You know, the stuff we need to survive? it causes _oxidation_ which results in cell death (yes, peer reviewed, blah,blah,blah even!). but of course we know oxygen deprivation leads to cell death. anti-oxidants can only do so much. and its why we will probably never figure out how to live forever. .








<edit: gee, he kinda looks like someone that would say "broohammmm" doesn't he?>
Science, nature etc isn't as black and white as professional wrestling in the 70's. good vs bad. we also see this in the coffee studies constantly flip-flopping.

that said, Lance's comment about the power of the dairy industry has some merit. they did lobby hard to influence recommendations on the nonsensical Canada Food Guide, and they do have the governments ear, like many large industrial/agricultural groups. But that doesn't mean theres a *conspiracy *to sell something "BAD" to consumers and make them sick/kill them.

have milk or dont. do what works for you. but respectfully, take your fear mongering blanket statements from pseudo-science snake-oil salesmen, and give yourself an enema with them. You'll feel better in the morning. or maybe you wont, I don't care. but still do it, please.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Diablo said:


> have milk or dont. do what works for you. but respectfully, *take your fear mongering blanket statements from pseudo-science snake-oil salesmen, and give yourself an enema with them. *You'll feel better in the morning. or maybe you wont, I don't care. but still do it, please.


Wow. I'm trying to imagine what the machine that could do that would look like. 

The good news - there's probably a 'doctor' on the internet showing us how to do it and supplying the necessary equipment. Operators are standing by to take our orders. S&H extra.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

High/Deaf said:


> Wow. I'm trying to imagine what the machine that could do that would look like.
> 
> The good news - there's probably a 'doctor' on the internet showing us how to do it and supplying the necessary equipment. Operators are standing by to take our orders. S&H extra.


well, it wasn't long ago when we were also being pitched the wonders of "high colonics", again with flawed science behind (pun) them .


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Diablo said:


> The hilarious thing to me is the use of the word TOXIC <cue scary Halloween movie music>.
> for one, its an exaggeration...terms like irritant-for some, allergen etc would be more appropriate.
> 
> for another, colchar pointed out above that my water joke earlier was likely missed by some, so I'm being less subtle, but this will blow your mind, wanna know what else causes cell death? OXYGEN! You know, the stuff we need to survive? it causes _oxidation_ which results in cell death (yes, peer reviewed, blah,blah,blah even!). but of course we know oxygen deprivation leads to cell death. anti-oxidants can only do so much. and its why we will probably never figure out how to live forever. .
> ...


One of the most high-profile whistleblower cases in the Canadian public service, over the past 30 years, is that of three scientists at Health Canada, who were concerned about the use of bovine growth hormone in livestock (including dairy cows), raised those concerns, and had their recommendations overturned by their management. Sometimes, stuff gets into the food chain that shouldn't be there.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> One of the most high-profile whistleblower cases in the Canadian public service, over the past 30 years, is that of three scientists at Health Canada, who were concerned about the use of bovine growth hormone in livestock (including dairy cows), raised those concerns, and had their recommendations overturned by their management. Sometimes, stuff gets into the food chain that shouldn't be there.


while they shouldn't have been stifled, 3 scientists "concerns" do not equate to "shouldn't be there". Cause for further investigation, would be a more apropriate response, provided that their concerns were justified.
Should Canadians Worry About Hormones In Milk?

youre strangely unscientific in this thread. surely you understand that a concern does not in its own reasonably merit a ban.
we seem to live in an era when the more upset someone gets the more something needs to be stopped/changed etc., regardless of the justifications or evidence.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Don't be misled by my attempts to use more diplomatic and softer language. They actioned for a ban, and were overturned by management.

I won't paint their management as evil, or science managers as incompetent. But let's just say that the federal public service has had a long-standing recognized problem finding science managers. _Somebody's_ gotta do it, of course, but those who love, and are steeped in, the science side of things are not especially attracted by the idea of giving up the lab or workbench or journals to spend their time budgeting, hiring, attending endless meetings, and putting in overtime, for what likely amounts to a lousy $10k more per year. Just not worth it. So they have an ongoing problem getting folks with deep scientific knowledge to seek science-management positions. I know because I served on a pan-government working group examining this specific challenge.

The same is somewhat true of I.T. management as well (and I know because I served on that working group as well). Many of those who pursue supervisory or manager positions in I.T. lack the people skills to fill those roles, or those with the skills and knowledge simply don't want the jobs. It's not about public-sector folks. It's about who _wants_ management positions that require certain skillsets and knowledge. As I retire (on Monday), I consider myself lucky to have not gone down the management path. For me, management is not really "about" anything, and I need to be in jobs that are about something. I have certainly enjoyed _following_ the management literature (and am proud to have received complimentary e-mails from Henry Mintzberg), but managing itself holds absolutely no appeal, despite knowing a great deal about it. And I'm not the only one.

Sometimes, you get lucky. My wife's manager in food safety is a smart guy, keeps his finger on the pulse of the research literature, and is a decent human being. Her management in her last position, not so much. And they had little background in the area they were overseeing.

But to reconnect with the thread, or at least where the thread detoured to, there is an important distinction to be made between the value and dietary role of a foodstuff,_ in its essential form_, and the acquired risks stemming from what happens to it once big business farming latches onto it, and seeks ways to bolster productivity and profits. That doesn't mean all such efforts are intrinsically bad or dangerous. But the question has to be raised about unintended risks and/or hazards. Sometimes they are evident, but dismissed in favour of productivity and profits. Sometimes they exist but take a long time to identify. And sometimes they might seem to exist, but are found to be of little realistic danger. My wife will often read animal studies of substances that throw unrealistic amounts/dosages of something at animals in ways that no human would ever self-administer in. The research may clearly show severe and statistically-reliable negative effects of the substance, but no human could ever reasonably expect to be exposed to that much over their lifetime under normal circumstances. It's her job to signal whether a given study signifies legitimate and realistic risk to be taken into consideration, or not.

So, for instance, yogurt? Great stuff. Tasty, nutritious, yadda, yadda. But many (though not all) major manufacturers use gelatin to thicken it. The gelatin comes primarily from cooked-down pig bones, but cow bones too. So, is there any animal-borne substance that might be incorporated with the gelatin, and ultimately the yogurt, that might give pause to wonder? Imagine if you didn't know whether any of the cows the gelatin might have come from had BSE. The problem now becomes not one of whether "yogurt" is bad for one, but whether certain brands and manufacturing facilities or ingredient-suppliers, were taking appropriate steps to insure that the ingredients were safe and properly inspected/certified.

It's always the little nitpicky details.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2017)

The yogurt companies would use the lowest bid in the whole wide world wins, so there must be gelatin from nasty 3rd word countries that is really cheap...


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)




----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2017)




----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Budda said:


> P99, people are still waiting for your scientific peer reviewed studies.


The absence of a study does not prove safety, it only proves ignorance.

Smoking was claimed to be safe and non-addictive at one time.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

dradlin said:


> The absence of a study does not prove safety, it only proves ignorance.
> 
> Smoking was claimed to be safe and non-addictive at one time.
> 
> ...


perhaps, but in a case where on one side have studies to back its claim, and the other does not, the prudent decision is with the side with studies, is it not?


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Diablo said:


> perhaps, but in a case where on one side have studies to back its claim, and the other does not, the prudent decision is with the side with studies, is it not?


Depends on who funded the studies and the economical and political influences.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Player99 said:


> The yogurt companies would use the lowest bid in the whole wide world wins, so there must be gelatin from nasty 3rd word countries that is really cheap...


Guess we better take the Jello away from the kiddies


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

dradlin said:


> Depends on who funded the studies and the economical and political influences.


Your scepticism is appropriate, given that human health is concerned. However, one needs to distiguish between studies that are conducted in-house, and those that are merely funded by commercial interests. 

In the former case, one needs to be concerned with the selective release of findings. In other words, there might be several in-house studies that find no benefit, or perhaps negative results, and the one study that finds benefit gets sent for external publication. Of course that is something we now understand is a risk for ALL scientific publishing, regardless of who funds and where it gets done. With so many researchers fighting to get shelf-space in journals, the tendency is to only send papers for review that have a little wow to them and not so much meh. "I looked, but I didn't find anything" won't get you published, no matter where your money comes from.

When it comes to academic researchers who score research funds from commercial or other (e.g., military) interests, the funding sources exert very little influence on the research itself, apart from when they decide what to fund or not fund. It may be the case that the researcher themselves has a bit of a leaning that is favorable to the funding source, but generally they simply want money for materials, grad students, and conference attendance, and simply look for who is offering money.

When I was at UVic, they hired a new biology prof who had done a couple of years conducting research that the US DoD funded. He was really interested in HIV, and had an animal model for studying the virus. The virus model he used was something that goes by the name of "rabbit fever". Because the DoD had a track record with him, and he was new to Canada, he applied to them for research funds. In his grant proposal he noted that, because there was currently no quick diagnostic test for that virus, those who contract it would suffer its ill effects (sometimes fatal, but apparently less frequently than death-by-falling-vending-machine) before anyone could diagnose it, making it a prime candidate for use as a biological weapon by others. But he was simply trying to wangle money to add to research on HIV. Some keeners got hold of his grant proposal, saw that paragraph, and declared him to be a "biological warfare" researcher, and they didn't want or need his kind at the university.

My good friend the former university president had to get big money to throw some of it at his school. That was the lion's share of a university president's job. As he conveyed to me, they want to know where it would do the most good (so you give them a short list and they pick a favorite), they want their name on something, they want the tax writeoff, and that's it. Sometimes they come with pre-determined preferences ("I want to establish an endowed chair for the study of Ukrainian/Nova Scotian history, baroque music, butterflies, etc..") But they are pretty much hands off. They may have paidfor the centrifuge or liquid scintillation counter, but they don't say anything about the research that comes from its use.

When the research gets sent to peer-reviewed journals, it may get rejected because it's not well done, but may also get rejected because the reviewers view the findings as contrary to their own beliefs/theoretical perspective. I recall one seminal paper (since replicated hundreds of times) that was initially rejected for publication because the reviewer described the findings "as likely as birdshit in a cuckoo clock". I suppose there can be petty jealousies, but they are lower down the list of hurdles to clear. Of course, few of us ever hear the backstory on how things get to the printed page, so we tend to assume the worst. lack of transparency always sets a place for suspicion at the table.

So, in sum, I won'tclaim that none-but-the-pure-of-heart gets published and used for shaping policy and regulations, but the popular caricature of funding corrupting the truthfulness of research is not particularly realistic. There are other things to worry about more, such as researchers with insufficient perspective simply trying to churn out themost papers, so they can get a tenured position.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Any argument can be spun from selective use of both good and bad research. One study comes out drawing certain conclusions, then another comes along with conflicting conclusions. Problem today is you don't know what to believe anymore and science, government, and corporations are to blame for the lack of public trust.

Naysayers want a study? Read "The China Study" then report back. Unless you are unwilling to accept its findings it will put pro meat/dairy arguments to bed.

Choose your diet as you will, but don't fool yourself about the health implications of your choices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

dradlin said:


> Any argument can be spun from selective use of both good and bad research. One study comes out drawing certain conclusions, then another comes along with conflicting conclusions. Problem today is you don't know what to believe anymore and science, government, and corporations are to blame for the lack of public trust.


Don't forget to include lousy science instruction and generally poor public comprehension of how science actually works.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

mhammer said:


> Don't forget to include lousy science instruction and generally poor public comprehension of how science actually works.


It's not the people's fault, they are not scientists! It is not the public' role to comprehend studies beyond their comprehension.

The people are asked/expected to trust that the government and its agencies has their interests, health, and safety in mind... that should be the case though that is FAR from the case!

The science community is wrought with its own problems, as your earlier post details many.

Corporations and money corrupt people, science, governments, agencies, everything.

Don't ever expect to find clear truth to any issue. Corporations by plan seed confusion and uncertainty in the minds of the people by manipulating science and government. A confused public maintains status quo and the is the goal of corporations.

Considering the economic impact behind industries reliant on meat, dairy, GMO, glyphosate, don't expect to ever hear the truth.

Being on a whole foods plant based diet for 2.5 years now I don't need a study... my life and personal health transition is the study I trust, and I've witnessed it repeating in others around me. Go ahead and scoff at that... I don't care... eat yourself into your grave as that is your choice to make.

Reality is we have a diet and health epidemic in most of this world. People are being lied to. Those are facts.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2017)

It's too bad that the Oracle's blood line didn't survive.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

dradlin said:


> It's not the people's fault, they are not scientists! It is not the public' role to comprehend studies beyond their comprehension.
> 
> The people are asked/expected to trust that the government and its agencies has their interests, health, and safety in mind... that should be the case though that is FAR from the case!


No one expects regular folks to assess whether the chi-quare for the goodness of fit, or the vehicle used for injection, or the timing and preparation of blood samples, is spot on. But a great many folks who study education, at multiple levels, express disappointment at the degree (or rather, absence) of _critical thinking_ on the part of those who have completed secondary or post-secondary studies. And when I say critical thinking, I don't mean criticism, but rather the qualifying and weighing of evidence, to arrive at a reasoned and defensible conclusion, and whatever beliefs and policies accompany it. There is a dearth of consilience out there. ( Consilience - Wikipedia )

Like I say, where transparency is not in abundance, suspicion and conspiratorial thinking take a seat at the table. It _can_ be the case that public or private-sector stakeholders might prefer to have obstacles to their own objectives removed, and can view the effort required for full disclosure and creating transparency as a nuisance. But often they think they are doing the "right" thing. Heck, companies like Boss don't make a pile of money, or even possibly _any_, in marketing their own power adaptors for pedals. But they insist you use _their_ adaptors because it is a pain in the ass to explain to consumers how to select an appropriate 3rd party adaptor, and a similar pain in the ass to deal with customer complaints and repairs because a customer couldn't be bothered to read the information or didn't understand it and damaged their purchase. So, they make it easier and sidestep problems by "lying" and saying you have to use _their_ adaptor, because they know it works. They are not trying to hoodwink anyone or screw them over; they just want to avoid problems in the simplest possible way.

And they are not alone in using that strategy. When StatsCan releases numbers on things, they will often round off figures and eliminate decimal places, because if they had to explain data-weighting to people (in order to make sense of seeing that 143.7 people indicated such and such), they wouldn't get their work done because they'd have to devote 20% of their staff to answering questions about the decimal points. Stuff gets hidden. Not because anyone has evil intent, but because one can't rely on a receptive audience with appropriate background knowledge, so you fudge, you round off, you obscure. It's the equivalent of telling one's partner they "look nice" before you head out, so that you actually CAN head out.

I am a regular cheerleader for people to take courses in research methodology and probability/statistics. It doesn't have to be heavy duty, and no one is expecting them to become researchers. But knowing how to simply think _about_ evidence, go in search of it, weigh it for validity and reliability, and put it together, is an important life skill, as we are seeing here in this thread. More and more, people are apt to hold inflexible beliefs based on how something _feels_ to them, rather than on the basis ofweighting of evidence from multiple perspectives. That's not good for us. It can lead us naively into danger, or lead us away from benefit.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

dradlin said:


> eat yourself into your grave as that is your choice to make.


Should we ignore the fact that we're all going to end up there anyway?


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

my first band as a kid was called

YOGURT

or maybe it was spelled

YOGOURT

I think we broke up because we couldn't all agree how to spell the band name


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

bolero said:


> my first band as a kid was called
> 
> YOGURT
> 
> ...


Bummer. You may have become 'culturally' relevant. GROAN!


----------

