Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S
Posts
34
Comments
584
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • None of these diseases is viral. They are all bacterial. You said:

    I think you need to take a basic virology course

    As you have such adapt knowledge about virology: Which viral infection is transmitted through raw milk, especially one that can cause a pandemic and can you now finally provide actual scientific sources of scientists considering these an issue? Clearly you must have had these in your virology classes, where you took your in depth virology knowledge from.

  • First of all COVID wasn't transmitted from eating. It was likely transmitted from animals that were still alive at that market and it was always a respiratory disease.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-2

    And then again what is your conclusion? To ban all products and activities, that have a principal possibility of transmitting diseases? Because then nothing much is left to be done. So obviously the probability needs to be a relevant factor. Which brings us back to the question if you have any source of scientists indicating that raw milk would be a relevant vector for the transmission of respiratory diseases.

    As it stands it seems to me that you just dislike raw milk for some reason, which has nothing to do with it being a relevant risk for diseases to spread or not.

  • For starters i find it unlikely that a respiratory disease is transmitted through food. Possible sure. But by the logic of "possible" rather than "probable" we should never leave the house again.

  • Pandemic from raw milk? Do you have a source for that?

  • I was just giving reason, that exist to prefer raw milk. I only ever drank raw milk when spending vacations on a farm and i didn't buy cow milk since a couple of years.

    Still i would like to say that i don't think raw milk is a problematic vector for pandemics to spread. Chance is people will get the shits if hygiene is bad, but i doubt a viral pandemic to spread because of raw milk. More likely would be farm workers getting an infection over the air and then spreading it to other humans.

  • Because raw milk contains everything, including all the fat and all the vitamins.

    Processed milk usually is first separated between fat and liquid and then the fat is readded. Also the pasteurization destroys some of the vitamins.

    More importantly though it just tastes different.

    Finally if you want to make yogurt or cream cheese, you want to work of raw milk because it contains the fermenting bacteria, but that is more of a niche application.

    Pasteurization by default does not remove all bacteria and probably also not all viruses. The milk you commonly find in supermarkets these days is not only pasteurized at high temperature, but also homogenized (pressed through a microsieve), which further alters the taste, reduces quality but extends the shelf life.

  • I get your point, but i think people are not consistent with this. Who gets or doesnt get sympathy is entirely emotional.

    Ive had people say that refugees are at fault for not getting their papers in order in time and shut be deportet over it and then go on to talk about how for them as citizens it is impossible with the low staffed and inefficient government offices these days.

    They willfully ignore that their problems with the bureaucracy could exist for other people too. And we are not even talking about acknowledgong it to be worse. Just simply transferring their life experience onto other people like you describe.

  • So the implication of this meme is to starting shooting minorities, so they get back in line with voting for the party.

    If that is the kind of "jokes" the "progressive" center makes, it is no wonder, that the fascists win the election. Seems like it does not matter, whether there is a D or an R next to the presidents name. The US will build concentration camps either way.

  • Again nowhere did i say that. The precondition is always that therapy is available and working. But therapy is expensive and requires individual therapists. Making and selling psychiatric drugs can be done as an efficient business. And the companies doing so are such great benevolent entities that they have paid record sums in compensations for victims of them pushing the drugs. This includes often families where the drugs lead to psychosis, suicide, homicide, adverse health problems...

    The very fact that psychiatric drugs can be advertised on TV in the US is complete madness. But i guess if you are a dealer or addict, nuance is easy to ignore.

  • It is different because there is no alternative to reliably prevent psychosis afaik.

    Why the hell do you get offended by the idea to minimize use of psychatric drugs where possible and to continue use where necessary?

  • I really wonder why you get offended by "We should try to minimize the use of psychatric drugs, where therapy is a viable alternative"?

    Do you prefer taking drugs with potentially severe side effects for the rest of your life? Do you want people to die, because some life event outside their control prevents them from accessing drugs like SSRIs or Benzodiazepines that can be deadly if quit cold turkey?

    Nothing of that has to do with maga nutjobs. On the contrary it should be basic human decency to find and provide the least harmful treatment.

  • I agree with the principal sentiment. Except for schizophrenia and other illnesses involving acute psychosis, drugs shouldnt be the permanent solution.

    But this requires access to proper psychotherapy, which needs to be part of a consistent concept of slowly reducing the drugs as the condition gets better.

    Also this requires a society, where people have enough agency to remove the causes of psychological distress from their life. People getting anxieties is perfectly normal, if they are in constant fear to not be able to pay their bills. People getting depressed is perfectly normal, if they are expected to work a dead end job for the rest of their lifes, etc.

    I see none of that coming from the direction of any politician.

    EDIT: Wow. People get offended by the idea not to pump people full of drugs for the rest of their lifes, when therapy is a viable alternative. Seriously why do you want people to suffer instead of providing proper healthcare including proper access to therapy and creating life conditions that aren't designed to make people sick? I never thought this to be controversial.

  • If you tell people now that Democracy is dead, they don't bother fighting the real fight, if and when push comes to shove.

    Dems said this election is the end of Democracy, but still put an uninspiring right candidate. They said Trump is the fascist danger to all the US stands for. But having him and his crownies dismantled by getting criminal charges on them seemed to go too far. When grassroots movements came up and demanded change instead of embracing them, taking them seriously and talking with them properly, they were shunned and pushed down.

    Now the greatest danger to corporate America are people to start organizing and taking to the streets. So hammer down the defeatist message, so the people suck up to their corporate overlords. The corporate overlords who won yet another election as both candidates represented their class interests.

  • Really? Then how came 12 million more people voted for Biden in 2020?

  • Yeah if only the Democrats had went more right. That would have saved things this time around. Also thanks to Biden talking about "moving together" and "healing" in 2020 the Republicans deradicalized..

  • The establishment wants to stay established, so they only use their established channels, not realizing how disconnected they became.

  • The relative numbers are worth little without knowing the underlying numbers. If it went from 100 to 700 people, that is still negligble. Also crazy how people immediately take that as a base to remove voters rights unless they pass some sort of test. Nothing could go wrong with stripping voters rights amirite?

  • I agree. If we now acknowledge that genocide was a relevant factor in making the Dems loose, this is bad for AIPAC. We need to quickly reestablish different narratives to protect AIPAC interests by claiming it was everything but the genocide. It took AIPAC a few days to develop the new narratives but now we need to embrace them.

  • There is still a lot of Arabs, Blacks, Latinos, Asians to be genocided by the white supremacy. Punishing genocide now has the potential to save billions of lifes later on. Whoever supports or eneacts genocide needs to be politically punished. Whoever opposes it needs to be politically rewarded. This way genocide becomes a political liability and opposing genocide a political asset.