Michael Schmidt acquitted in raw-milk case

Michael Schmidt acquitted in raw-milk case

Finally a small victory for nutrition. Or, at least those who choose to accept milk as beneficial.

I however sit on the fence on this great debate.

Yes, milk in its raw state offers better nutritional elements than pasteurized milk (providing it is bacteria free).

The enzymes in the raw milk are active, enabling improved digestibility and therefore increased nutrition.

However...

We get immune "packets" from milk that are not designed for human beings. They are designed for baby cows - calves.

These therefore become pathogenic to human beings. Meaning, our human immune system is actually put under stress whilst it defends against the bovine immune packets.

We must remember that we are the only species in the animal kingdom that willingly drinks milk beyond the infant stage of life! And further more, we choose to do this from another species!

Perhaps I don't sit on the fence after all.
And what about "milk marketing"?
Where did these guys get thier stats from?
Check this out for marketing (who says sex doesn't sell?).

I love the line: "...some studies suggest teens who choose it tend to be leaner."

What the hell is that supposed to mean!!! And what's this "some studies" crap.

I could write a study suggesting that milk will give you herpes and fit into that "some studies" category!

Come on people, don't buy into this marketing hooplah.

I'm not a conspiracy theory junkie, but I do believe that the milk marketing board and "big pharma" have a little romance going on behind closed doors. 


That said: If one chooses to consume a food or beverage of any kind, they should most definitely consume that beverage in a raw state. This is the only way to receive full nutritional value and enzymatic action.


Anyone want to try and convince me that raw milk is one of the best sources of calcium???