So the records of tooth decay we have during the beginnings of agriculture are not “traditional”? Curious where your line of “traditional” is. I have a hunch it lines up with your dietary preferences.

Maybe you could start this line of inquiry by comparing Price's research with these records of which you write.

A really good start is to only buy and eat things that contain one ingredient. Mostly everything else is bad for you (and your teeth).

# Yes, yes, there are exceptions, but I'd say it holds true at least 95% of the time.

EDIT/UPDATE: I was actually being serious. Fruit, vegetables, grains, meat. Cook and eat those things, and you'll do fine. Of course you can combine them, but do so at home so you control what's actually in there.

Worth noting that any modern fruit you'll find in a shop has been bred for generations to contain far far far more sugar than they would have had prior to industrialisation.

Any single fruit is a combination of multiple things. I'd rather have a more scientific explanation.

The article makes two points/claims.

- Soft foods leads to small dental arches and thus crowding

- carb-rich (i.e. Western diets) lead to decay

Basically, you're agreeing with the article.

It's not carb-rich diets, it's processed carbohydrates. Every culture on earth eats predominately carbohydrates, with a very small few exceptions like Inuit or some peoples in Africa. Asia has mostly rice, Africa various roots, South/North America it was corn, etc. Humans are (loosely) starch-ivores

Every agricultural culture eats primarily carbs. And the onset of agriculture is associated with the onset of tooth decay (and many signs of malnutrition) in the archaeological record.

Non-human primates also eat predominantly carbs, but mostly from fruits (and not from grains, which are highly cultivated by humans).

So I guess it's good to distinguish between sugars-from-fruit and starches-from-grains.

I thought that link between agriculture and tooth decay was due to the early "milling" techniques which introduced bits of stone into the food, causing mechanical wear? I don't remember where I got this from, however.

Price observed that the great majority of traditional diets were high in animal fats. He theorized that vitamin K, which is mostly acquired from animal fat, was the key health-promoting factor. Humans are more likely facultative carnivores than grain-eaters.

Traditional to whom, to hunter gatherers? Early farmers living in tribes? Or people living under strong states that developed over past few thousands years?

Based on my visit to India, travels around middle east, and third world countries. Oils, and fats are the most affordable way to get a high enough amount of calories in a diet for the poor masses. So even if you're poor, and eating rice everyday. It will be typically with something oily and some spices to add flavour.

I read the book, he travelled to multiple continents and generally this is pre- industrial diets, or prior to introduction of vegetable and seed oils, refined sugars, processed carbs, etc. Because he was able to do this research in the 20s, the industrial diet hadn't quite taken over. He also studied mummies in South America. They overwhelmingly had perfect teeth, prior to introduction of modern junk food.

I wonder how they survived berries. Because berries are not good for your teeth due to high (natural) sugar content.

Modern fruits have wayyy more sugar than wild plants, due to years and years of selective breeding.

Even then you still have a lot of fiber and acid to slow down the release and absorption of sugars.

Also berries are fairly seasonal AFAIK

Price observed the traditional cultures he had access to at the time, you can read the details for yourself here: http://www.journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc....

Mostly acquired from animal fat if you're eating animals... Leafy greens (kale etc.) are a great source of plant vitamin K

K1 comes from veggies. K2 is almost exclusively from animal products (except for natto, yum!).

Apparently our bodies can synthesize some K2 from K1 but my understanding is that's quite variable and should not assumed to be adequate.

There's a fair amount of research linking arteriosclerosis to a deficiency of K2, so it's part of my supplement regimentation. It's definitely worth researching if you're interested in optimizing your health in a very lazy manner :-).

I thought there was also a fair amount of research linking red meat consumption to arteriosclerosis, so something doesn't add up.

It turns out the research for that doesn't meet evidence-based medicine standards. Almost all observational studies of human nutrition are junk science with small effect sizes and poor controls.

the evidence for that was mostly based on Ancel Keys' work around the 1950s and it has been pretty clearly shown that he cherry picked the data in his observational study. When analyzed properly, the link between any kind of heart disease and red meat disappears. Look up Gary Taubes work for thorough references

Source? You may actually be thinking of the lipid hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis) that Ancel Keys developed.

As I gather, we still believe that red meat consumption leads to heart disease, but we're becoming less sure of his hypothesis that the elevated cholesterol resulting from saturated fat (found in red meat) causes heart disease.

There is an assumption here that there is one diet is the best in all respects. But I don't think that's the case. Diets have benefits and drawbacks. Like over the years we have adapted a little bit in this direction and then later a little bit in that direction and that's how we are where we are.

There's nothing wrong with natto..

I think the point was that it's not common across the world. Though I might not be detecting some sarcasm.

It was good natured sarcasm. I've researched making it and if I could get the time and focus to do so, I would.

That said, I have yet to eat it and say "yum!"

What a load of b. We have herbivore teeth, all our closest primate ancestors are herbivore, we have a long, herbivore intestine, an appendix, etc. Feels like you have an agenda to push here.

We have a short omnivore intestine and many of the plants our primate ancestors ate would give you a very bad stomach ache.

We don't look like other predators because our main weapon is our brain and tools rather than claws and strength. We also cook our meat which means we need less powerful jaws and less sharp teeth. Keep in mind that you still have incisors and canines specifically for eating meat. You could even run your tongue along then right now and feel how sharp they are.

Gorillas and hippos also have canines. It's not a good heuristic. Try tearing the flesh off an animal with your canines

Fair point. Though we do cook our meat so don't need to tear raw flesh.

This is correct. The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis of brain/gut development pretty clearly shows that a switch to eating meat and hunting coincided with a shortening of our intestines and enlarging of our brain, making us human.

Incorrect. ETH postulates that there could be a correlation between gut length and brain development, the paper explicitly states that there could be an alternative methodology for how we manage the metabolic requirements for our brains. Back to the point on humans having canines. Herbivores also have canines to tear through fibrous plant material see (gorilla, baboon and hippo).

I think the HN demographic doesn't take well to the tone you used, but there is a lot of evidence that you're right.

What is a processed carbohydrate to you? Only refined wheat flower, white rice, and sucrose? These issues started with the shift to agriculture, and the cultures I believe you're describing are all agricultural. That's why civilization exists at all.

Hunter gatherers ate all sorts of things. But starch and sugar was not easily accessible. Wild rice, for instance, would be painstaking to gather and consume in large amounts. Roots and tubers would be small and have lots of antinutrients, keeping you from eating a lot of them. Fruits were seasonal and generally tiny.

If I were a hunter gatherer, in the absence of fresh hunted meat, I would get more nutritional value out of worms or larvae in the dirt than a handful of tubers that may give me a stomachache. Insects are animal protein (and fat).

No the people he studied were in the 1920s. Traditional diets vs newer modern industrial diets. Vast majority of cultures were agricultural since 5000BC. It's seed and vegetable oils (not used as dietary fat source until industrial methods made it possible in early 20th century), white bread, enriched flour, high fructose corn syrup, excessive sugar, etc.

Do you have a source for the starch-ivore comment? Id like to do some research. Thanks.

Yes I first heard about it through the work of Nathianel Dominy [1] [2]

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/ [2] https://youtube.com/watch?v=ufNEoLeVplc

There's a very interesting and long 6-year old discussion in the comments of the YouTube video you posted. In it, Marcinmd1 makes a lot of very good points, against the premise of the video...

What does "predominantly" mean in the context of diet? Carbs, proteins, and fats all make a very statistically significant portion of most diets.

Most industrial diets rather, but for traditional agricultural diets, complex carbohydrates are 70-80 percent of the diet.

Humans farming is a very very recent development. People existed for millennia before they started farming crops.

Don’t/didn’t indigenous peoples eat roots like cassava and potatoes, beets, etc., even rice?

Different indigenous peoples ate very different diets, from zero carb to mostly carb, but each group ate a smaller variety of foods because they were constrained by their geography. Most diets were high in animal fats though, and even the ones that were high in carbohydrate had adequate amounts of animal fat in the form of cheese and (raw, whole) milk.

Potatoes didn't exist in the Old World until brought from South America. Corn (maize) and tomatoes also came from the New World.

Yeah but mentioned Begg and doesn't mention Price. Begg advocated for mechanical intervention, Price advocated for nutritional intervention. Only mentioning Begg presents a biased view on possible therapies.

Carbs are actually not bad, but if you do not have the proper micronutrients in place they’ll just mess your teeth and your health. Cue obesity, diabetes, dental issues, poor resistance to infection

Could you provide some more information on this?

> When an industrialized, Western diet was followed

What specifically in the diet is the thing that causes it?

Because there is not just one "industrialized, Western diet", there are hundreds or thousands of them.

The article posits "soft, sugary". What is Price's theory?

Price theorized that the missing element in Western diets was vitamin K, which is acquired in high amounts from animal fats. Every traditional diet had an adequate amount of animal fat, either in meat they ate, raw cheese, or raw whole milk.

According to the Linus Pauling Institute, Vitamin K2 is found most plentifully in certain non-animal fermented foods, cheeses (no mention of them having to be 'raw'), and animal liver, rather than animal fat in general.

https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-K

It seems animal (and human) fat doesn't store much Vitamin K which is why a steady dietary supply is necessary.

Also did ancient societies have higher average lifespans than today? I don't quite understand claims ancient people were healthier.. Of course modern lifestyles have severe inadequacies, but it's complex, and for example many Japanese have quite long life spans despite eating a lot of rice.

Being healthy is not the only factor for long lifespan, there are also accidental risks (disease, being eaten by a tiger, ...) mitigated by our modern way of life and access to advanced healthcare.

A Masai is probably healthier than a cliche westerner fueled processed carbs and sitting all day, but the latter will certainly live longer.

As for Japanese eating lots of rice, portion control ? I'd guess they get a large proportion of their calories from rice, but don't over-eat. I used to live in Thailand, Thais eat all the time, mostly carbs but small portions, and there are still fewer fat people than in the West.

We are not talking about ancient 'societies' but rather ancient hunter gather people. Civilisation is only around 12,000 years old, modern humans have been around for 200,000 years and hominids for millions of years. Different time scale.

Think obesity, heart disease and diabetes. These don't exist in hunter gatherer people alive today and there is no record that humans ever had these problems before agriculture and civilization. We are better at treating health problems when they do arrise but we also have health problems that are caused by our lifestyle.

Why do people get dental work? Because good teeth are a sign of good health. We have far more problems with our teeth than hunter gatherer people but you don't see it because it is masked by dentistry. We have problems with blood pressure but it's masked with statins. We have problems with blood sugar but it's masked by insulin injections. We have problems with fatigue but its masked by coffee and sugar. We have problems with our joints and well... we haven't figured out what to do about that one yet. The list goes on.

Could it also be from your subconscious realising that starvation is more of a danger then predation?

They don't eat as much rice as you would think as a proportion of calories. Rice portions in most asian cultures can fit in the palm of your hand typically. Lots of veggies, fish and meats too.

Ex: https://thriftynomads.com/how-to-be-a-frugal-foodie-in-japan...

While americans typically have a much higher proportion of food as carbs & fat vs protein & veggies.

I'll admit that fermented food was also a common factor among all traditional societies, and yes its a good source of K. Price simply theorized K was the important factor, didn't prove it. But it almost doesn't matter what the single factor was (if there is a single factor), if we just eat an ancestral diet then we should get the benefits. Also animal fat has other benefits that Price was not aware of at the time, like inducing ketosis etc, which is why I mentioned it specifically.

Also perhaps the Japanese have long life spans in spite of eating lots of rice. Wheat grains seem to be harmful, whereas rice is a neutral carb, and Japanese get plenty of animal fats from pork in ramen, raw fish, etc.

>> Every traditional diet had an adequate amount of animal fat, either in meat they ate, raw cheese, or raw whole milk.

Why the stress on "raw" cheese and milk? Heat-treated milk and dairy have the same amounts of animal fats as raw.

Edit:

Ah, I see:

The [Weston A. Price ] Foundation is an advocate for the consumption of unpasteurized milk, or raw milk. One of its goals is to remove health regulations requiring pasteurization of milk products, so that raw milk can be legally purchased in all states. Supporters of this campaign believe pasteurization removes or destroys beneficial parts of raw milk, leading to a less healthy product that is associated with numerous diseases.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A._Price_Foundation#Act...

So the foundation named after the author of the book you discuss supports the idea that drinking raw milk is beneficial to health and that pasteurised milk causes disease.

To clarify, is this why your comment is talking of raw cheese and milk? Do you also believe that raw milk is healthier than pasteurised milk?

On average, the Western diet contains far more processed carbohydrates and far less uncooked fiber than traditional diets. Were you really not aware of that?

Is Price’s research treated seriously by modern medicine?

I’ve only come across it in the context of Vitamin K supplement marketing materials.

Oh nice stuff! Glad to see educated people here. I think Weston Price was definitely onto something, however please be very skeptical of the claims about the cod liver oil and similar. They are a very poor source all things considered of vitamin a d and k; they also contains tons of rancid fat which I think everyone even the mainstream agree is damaging to health.

One thing Weston made me realize and saddens me is how even the upper classes of many countries nowadays follow pretty poor diets and food ideas. Like even they who could afford proper nutrition are not getting it, let alone the aspirants who emulate all the latest diet fads and trends.

What were the "traditional diets," vegetables?

Its complex, but Price suggested vitamin K from animal fats was the key element. All traditional diets were heavy in animal fats, either meat or raw dairy/cheese. Vegetables and fruit were only eaten seasonally, and not in high volume.

>raw dairy/cheese

Why "raw"? Is pasteurization bad?

Yes it is. Pasteurization destroys the nutrients and beneficial bacteria. Raw milk from healthy cows is a probiotic like yogurt and extremely health promoting. People that are supposedly lactose intolerant are often able to drink raw milk after an adjustment period, probably because they improve their microbiome. See https://www.realmilk.com/ (one of the good things the WAPF has done) and the book "The Untold Story of Milk" for a fascinating tell-all,including how pasteurization was initially used because producers were spiking milk with chalk and embalming fluid and literally feeding dairy cows shit, public health officials had no other way to control the milk supply.

realmilk.com is the website of a campaign for raw milk by the Weston A. Price Foundation. Being the website of an activist organisation it is not a source that is likely to be objective. Especially troublesome is the clear attempt to rebrand raw milk as "real milk", possibly to avoid the negative associations that most people rightly make with raw milk.

I cite below from the wikipedia page on raw milk, which is more likely to be an objective source:

With the exception of an altered organoleptic [flavor] profile, heating (particularly ultra high temperature and similar treatments) will not substantially change the nutritional value of raw milk or other benefits associated with raw milk consumption."[20]

Raw milk advocates, such as the Weston A. Price Foundation, say that raw milk can be produced hygienically, and that it has health benefits that are destroyed in the pasteurization process.[2] Research shows only very slight differences in the nutritional values of pasteurized and unpasteurized milk.[12][20]

Three studies have found a statistically significant inverse relationship between consumption of raw milk and asthma and allergies.[28][29][30] However, all of these studies have been performed in children living on farms and living a farming lifestyle, rather than comparing urban children living typical urban lifestyles and with typical urban exposures on the basis of consumption or nonconsumption of raw milk. Aspects of the overall urban vs. farming environment lifestyle have been suggested as having a role in these differences, and for this reason, the overall phenomenon has been named the "farm effect".

Also see webpages (and a pdf report) on drinking raw milk from the US FDA and CDC, UK FSA and EU EFSA, below:

The Dangers of Raw Milk: Unpasteurized Milk Can Pose a Serious Health Risk

https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/dangers-r...

Raw (Unpasteurized) Milk

https://www.cdc.gov/features/rawmilk/index.html

Raw drinking milk

https://www.food.gov.uk/safety-hygiene/raw-drinking-milk

Scientific opinion on the public health risks related to the consumption of raw drinking milk

https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa...

tl;dr all major public health agencies in the US and Europe advise against consumption of raw milk.

> I cite below from the wikipedia page on raw milk, which is more likely to be an objective source

It seems the co-founder of Wikipedia disagrees with your assessment of it as an objective source, in particular in this area, among others.

https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

I'm sorry, I can't find anything about raw milk in the article you linked to. Can you cite the passage from the article that discusses raw milk?

(I assume that by "this area" you mean raw milk, i.e. the subject of my comment above.)

This area meaning "scientific topics on health".

Quote:

It may seem more problematic to speak of the bias of scientific articles, because many people do not want to see “unscientific” views covered in encyclopedia articles. If such articles are “biased in favor of science,” some people naturally find that to be a feature, not a bug. The problem, though, is that scientists sometimes do not agree on which theories are and are not scientific. On such issues, the “scientific point of view” and the “objective point of view” according to the Establishment might be very much opposed to neutrality. So when the Establishment seems unified on a certain view of a scientific controversy, then that is the view that is taken for granted, and often aggressively asserted, by Wikipedia.

The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. Another example is how Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. Indeed, Wikipedia defines the very term as follows: “Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective.” In all these cases, genuine neutrality requires a different sort of treatment.

Again, other examples could be found, in no doubt thousands of other, perfectly unexciting topics. These are just the first topics that came to mind, associated as they are with the culture wars, and their articles on those topics put Wikipedia very decidedly on one side of that war. You should not be able to say that about an encyclopedia that claims to be neutral.

Apologies, but I fail to see the relevance of this passage to the conversation above.

Please don't be a jerk on HN. Apart from breaking the site guidelines, it gives people a reason to dismiss what you're saying, which is not in your interest and particularly bad if what you're saying is true.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

I have looked at all of these arguments in depth and recommend you read at least "The Untold Story of Milk" before making conclusions.

The history of raw milk has been tainted with misinformed public policy. The dangers of unpasteurized milk are highly over-exaggerated. To put it bluntly, I don't trust the government's assessments about raw dairy.

On a practical level, consider this: people drank milk for thousands of years, but we only started pasteurizing it in the early 1900s. Do you really think people before 1900 were just living with these supposed diseases of raw milk, completely unawares? No, they drank raw milk and they were fine.

> Do you really think people before 1900 were just living with these supposed diseases of raw milk, completely unawares? No, they drank raw milk and they were fine.

Except for the ones who died. Life expectancy has gone up dramatically since 1900.

>> On a practical level, consider this: people drank milk for thousands of years, but we only started pasteurizing it in the early 1900s. Do you really think people before 1900 were just living with these supposed diseases of raw milk, completely unawares? No, they drank raw milk and they were fine.

People fall ill from drinking raw milk and even die today, when we have a better understanding of the causes of disease and have much better hygiene standards. I don't understand why you expect that this happened less, or not at all (?) in the past.

>> To put it bluntly, I don't trust the government's assessments about raw dairy.

Which government's? I linked to sites from the US, the UK and the EU. They are representative of health agencies from around the world.

In any case, this is from the WHO, i.e. not a governmental source:

Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli are among the most common foodborne pathogens that affect millions of people annually – sometimes with severe and fatal outcomes. Symptoms are fever, headache, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhoea. Examples of foods involved in outbreaks of salmonellosis are eggs, poultry and other products of animal origin. Foodborne cases with Campylobacter are mainly caused by raw milk, raw or undercooked poultry and drinking water. Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli is associated with unpasteurized milk, undercooked meat and fresh fruits and vegetables.

Listeria infection leads to miscarriage in pregnant women or death of newborn babies. Although disease occurrence is relatively low, listeria’s severe and sometimes fatal health consequences, particularly among infants, children and the elderly, count them among the most serious foodborne infections. Listeria is found in unpasteurised dairy products and various ready-to-eat foods and can grow at refrigeration temperatures.

https://www.who.int/NEWS-ROOM/FACT-SHEETS/DETAIL/FOOD-SAFETY

It's interesting to note that some of the diesease associated with raw milk consumption are also caused by consumption of other foods, e.g. raw meat or raw eggs etc. It doesn't make a lot of sense to think that it's possible to get, e.g. E. coli from raw meat, but not from raw milk.

> People fall ill from drinking raw milk and even die today, when we have a better understanding of the causes of disease and have much better hygiene standards. I don't understand why you expect that this happened less, or not at all (?) in the past.

The illnesses associated with raw milk are caused by improperly handled milk, diseased cows, or something else entirely. Its human error, not some inherent quality of milk that is dangerous. Seriously take a look at the book The Untold Story of Milk, it has done all of the intellectual work to weigh the evidence and analyze the history already.

>> Its human error, not some inherent quality of milk that is dangerous.

I agree that it's not an "inherent quality of milk" that is dangerous. For instance, it's not the fact that milk is liquid, or that its colour is white/yellow that makes it dangerous. It is the presence of pathogenic bacteria in raw milk that make drinking raw milk dangerous.

However, the presence of pathogenic bacteria in raw milk is not the result of "human error". Indeed, one would say that it is the natural state of things that bacteria will populate everything we eat, drink or breathe. It just happens that some of those bacteria can cause illness or kill us.

>> Seriously take a look at the book The Untold Story of Milk, it has done all of the intellectual work to weigh the evidence and analyze the history already.

So have the WHO, FDA, CDC, EFSA, FSA, etc etc. Does the book you recommend arrive at different results?

Edit: To be a bit more precise about "human error". Animals do not need to be diseased and humans don't need to make errors for raw milk to cause illness. See for example the campylobacter outbreak caused by raw milk produced by Kendal Farm in the UK:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-38409110

Note:

In August the farm won a National Trust fine farm produce award for its unpasteurised milk.

Meaning the highest possible hygiene standards were observed at that farm. This being a UK farm, hygiene standards means that ill animals are separated from the herd and their milk destroyed and that animals and their milk are tested at least twice a year to ensure they're free from infection. You will not find more stringent hygiene procedures the world over. And yet, an outbreak did occur.

> So have the WHO, FDA, CDC, EFSA, FSA, etc etc. Does the book you recommend arrive at different results?

Yes

Are there any authoritative sources that arrive at the same results as the book you recommend? If so, could you link to them, please?

The same Weston A Price? https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sbm-weston-prices-appalling...

I've seen/read this site before. What really bothers me about it and the similar arguments found on quackwatch, they are pretty much all based on crap from The Weston A. Price Foundation that Price himself never even wrote/promoted.

If SBM did ANY due diligence, I'm Pretty sure they'd notice that the foundation, (founded in 1999) is pretty far apart from Price's book, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration". He died in 1948 and thus, had no connection to the foundation bearing his name. It's like they didn't read his book at all and just assumed The Weston A. Price Foundation was echoing his findings. The Weston A. Price Foundation is essentially wack fanfic, very loosely based on his findings, with tonnes of other "holistic" horse shit thrown in.

Dr. Price himself was a proponent of many things that are coming into favor now, such as not overly processing food, not having white bread, getting adequate amounts of vit. d, vit. a, calcium and some others.

Source: Unlike SBM/QW, I've actually read his book.

FWIW, I enjoyed copious amounts of milk as a kid until about the age of 20, its just about all I drank. My vit. a/d levels must have been through the roof vs the average person. (In Canada vit. d3 has to be added to milk by law.) I'm 37, have all 32 teeth, sans cavities, yes even the wisdom teeth. Now adays, I prefer to just drink water and get vits. a/d from cod liver oil. My diet mostly consists of much vegetables and animal foods. Cooked veg and meat are always cooked in butter. I've never been overweight, my bp is 115/65. I'm super sedentary in the winter, quite active in the summer.

Edited for spelling

It's prudent to note that raw, natural, unadulterated milk is very different from the processed stuff in stores, which has a dark history: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/19th-century-f...

See also the book "The Untold Story of Milk" by Ron Schmid.

Apart from vitamin D fortification and pasteurization, what is the difference?

See other comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23350712

Drinking raw milk from a local farm has been one of the best things I've done in the past year for my health and nutrition. I drink almost a liter a day.

I believe personal experience is important in this matter. Here are some more experiences of people who drank raw milk for their health:

Kylee Young was just about to turn 2 years old when she drank raw (unpasteurized) milk contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 bacteria in April of 2012. She first fell ill with bloody diarrhea. Next, Kylee developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, a complication of E. coli infection that can lead to kidney damage and central nervous system impairment. Kylee's kidneys shut down and she suffered a stroke while being treated for her E. coli infection and HUS. Less than 2 years later, before she turned 4, Kylee received a transplanted kidney from her mom. This is her family's story.

Larry Pedersen had just turned one year old when he developed an E. coli O157:H7 infection in May 2008. When his diarrhea turned bloody, his parents took him for medical treatment. He was admitted to the hospital on May 8. Shortly thereafter, Larry developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) and was transferred to a specialty care facility. As is typical of HUS, Larry was then suffering from acute renal failure. He was started on dialysis, which was necessary at that point for his survival. He required 15 days of dialysis before his kidneys recovered enough to function on their own. Larry was discharged on May 29, to continue recovery and treatment on an outpatient basis. The medical bills associated with his care approached $90,000. As the result of damage to his kidneys suffered during his bout with HUS, Larry is at significant risk for severe renal complications in the future. These complications include end stage renal disease (ESRD) and kidney transplant.

Nicole Riggs developed an E. coli O157:H7 infection in May 2008. She was nine years old at the time. Nicole suffered from symptoms typical of E. coli O157:H7 infections – bloody diarrhea, cramping, and nausea – that quickly intensified and led to her hospitalization on May 8, 2008. Once hospitalized, Nicole developed renal failure, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (low platelet count) indicating that she was developing HUS. She was transferred to a Children’s hospital and started on dialysis in order to save her life. She received dialysis for 18 days. Nicole’s renal function slowly returned to the point that she was deemed healthy enough for discharge on June 1. After discharge, she remained under the care of a nephrologist. In addition, damage suffered during her HUS required that her gall bladder be removed. Medical costs associated with Nicole's E. coli infection and HUS exceed $180,000. As the result of damage to her kidneys suffered during her bout with HUS, Nicole is at significant risk for severe renal complications in the future.

Mari Tardiff became ill with a Campylobacter infection after drinking raw milk in 2008. As a result of her Campylobacter infection, Mari developed Guillain Barré syndrome, or GBS, a potentially fatal inflammatory disorder. GBS is an infrequent, but well-known risk of Campylobacter infection. By the time she was hospitalized in mid June, Mari was essentially paralyzed. On June 15, Mari was intubated and placed on mechanical ventilation. For weeks on end, Mari’s condition remained unchanged. She was heavily sedated, unable to move, and entirely dependent on mechanical ventilation for survival. In August, there were indications of slight improvement, and the very slow process of weaning Mari off mechanical ventilation began. At the outset, it was not clear that the process was successful. Through incredible effort on Mari’s part, she was fully weaned off mechanical ventilation by August 20, and discharged to a rehabilitation facility. She spent more than two months at the rehabilitation facility diligently attempting to re-acquire the ability to speak, breathe, and move her arms and legs on her own. She was discharged home on November 1, still in need of essentially 24-hour care. Since that time, she has worked every day toward achieving her goal, as yet unreached, of walking again. Medical expenses exceed $1,000,000.

Chris Martin, then age seven, developed an E. coli O157:H7 infection in September 2006 following consumption of raw milk. He was hospitalized beginning on September 8, suffering from severe gastrointestinal symptoms, including bloody diarrhea. Shortly thereafter, he developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). In an effort to properly treat his rapidly deteriorating condition, Chris was moved to multiple medical facilities, twice by life-flight. His HUS was remarkably severe, marked by prolonged renal failure, pancreatitis, and severe cardiac involvement. He required 18 days of renal replacement therapy. On two occasions his cardiac problems became so severe that he was placed on a ventilator. At several junctures, the possibility that he might not survive was very real. Ultimately he was hospitalized through November 2, after incurring over $550,000 in medical bills. Renal experts have opined that Chris is likely to develop severe renal complications in the future. These complications include end stage renal disease (ESRD) and kidney transplant.

Kalee Prue, a 27-year-old mother of one, became infected with E. coli O157:NM in June 2008. Her symptoms began in early July, and intensified for several days. On two occasions, Kalee sought treatment in the emergency room. On July 12, it became apparent that she was developing hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). She was then admitted to the hospital on July 13. Kalee’s renal failure was complete and prolonged, and she required plasmapharesis from July 13 through August 11. Severe anemia necessitated repeated transfusions with packed red blood cells as well. By the time she was released from the hospital on August 14, she had incurred over $230,000 in medical bills. Kalee has not recovered full renal function. She is at severe risk for long-term renal complications, including end stage renal disease (ESRD), dialysis, and transplant.

https://realrawmilkfacts.com/real-life-stories/

Pasteurized milk causes illness too. The key factors are the health of the cows and handling of the milk. If the cows are unhealthy, or if the dairy processing is done in an unclean space, then there could be problems. See The Untold Story of Milk for analysis/references

>> Pasteurized milk causes illness too.

Of course. Pasteurised milk is not 100% safe to drink. However, it is much safer than raw milk:

The rate of outbreaks caused by unpasteurized milk (often called raw milk) and products made from it was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 13-year review also revealed that the states where the sale of raw milk was legal had more than twice the rate of outbreaks as states where it was illegal.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0221_raw_milk_outbr...

Additionally, illnesses caused by pasteurised milk and dairy products tend to be less severe than those caused by raw milk:

Thirteen percent of patients in raw milk outbreaks were hospitalized compared to 1 percent in pasteurized milk outbreaks. This may be because raw milk outbreaks were all caused by bacteria, such as E. coli O157, which tend to produce more severe illnesses, according to the study.

Pasteurized milk and cheese outbreaks were often caused by relatively mild infections like norovirus and Staphylococcus aureus.

(Same source as above).

>> If the cows are unhealthy, or if the dairy processing is done in an unclean space, then there could be problems.

Raw milk from healthy animals, produced and handled under the most strict hygiene standards can still cause illness:

Can I still get a disease from raw milk and raw milk products if the animals are healthy, clean, and grass-fed or if the dairy is especially careful and clean when collecting the milk?

Yes. Even healthy animals may carry germs that can contaminate milk. Small numbers of bacteria can multiply and grow in milk from the time it is collected until the time a person drinks it. If the milk is not pasteurized to kill germs, people who drink it can get sick. Methods for collecting milk have improved over the years but cannot be relied on to be sure milk is safe to drink. Raw milk from “certified,” “organic,” or “local” dairies is not guaranteed to be safe. Only pasteurization can make milk safe to drink. You can find pasteurized organic milk and products made from it at many local, small farms.

https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-an...

>> See The Untold Story of Milk for analysis/references

I'm sorry, but the book you recommend is a commercial publication and I don't wish to pay to read it.

Could you please provide alternative references or analysis, that are free to read? For example, references or analysis from public health bodies, or scientific publications, etc would tend to be freely available.

The active enzymes in natural milk are substantially destroyed in the pasteurization process. Lipase is a good example, there are dozens of others.

Yeah, I've eaten a decent amount of raw animal products of good quality and never gotten sick from them. Beef 4 times or so, pork once, sashimi and non sashimi grade fish, eggs, (daily), beef liver, cow tongue, oddly never milk yet.

I don't think there is actually any good evidence that what I've done in that regard should be promoted. Price's book never promoted these things either.

It's important to separate the research produced by the man Weston A Price from the foundation that has adopted his name. I'm referencing the man and his research, and citing lectures from the Ancestral Health Society, which actually publishes a scientific journal of its own.

Right, The WAPF and people who cant separate the man vs a foundation that was made over 50 years after he died, have probably done a huge amount of damage in this regard.

That site is the definition of midwit pulp. Citing rationalwiki, referring to raw meat as "dangerous", vast overconfidence compared to the actual predictive power available. Sure, WAPF has some wacky stuff, but they also have some obviously good advice, and for most of the disputable claims they make, we don't actually have especially good evidence that they're wrong, so it's not something I'm going to waste energy arguing about.

> That site is the definition of midwit pulp.

You mean the WAPF site, right?

> Sure, WAPF has some wacky stuff, but they also have some obviously good advice, and for most of the disputable claims they make, we don't actually have especially good evidence that they're wrong

Here's WAPF recommending homeopathy for alcoholism, sinus infections, and cancer:

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/homeopathy-and-al...

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/homeopathy/honk-i...

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/homeopathy/dont-b...

Here's WAPF arguing against vaccines, calling Bill Gates (what?) a "delusional global dictator" (double what?) and saying that if you do have to give a child a vaccine that you should "keep him quiet for at least 24 hours after a shot" (triple what?)

https://www.westonaprice.org/vaccinations/

Homeopathy doesn't work in a literal sense, but it's fine because it keeps people distracted from going to the doctor to get loaded up on pills until their condition goes away naturally. Cancer is probably the exception there.

Like I said, they have some wacky stuff, but a lot of WP's advice is good

The WAPF has Screwed Price himself and people his findings could have helped by using his name to promote hokey bs.

(spelling)