• DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      There’s not much of a reason to drink milk nowadays anyway. Oat milk has become so good in emulating the taste of cow milk that there’s just no point in going for the original product with all its massive downsides.

      • AliasAKA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Please give me recommendations of oat milk that tastes good. I’ve been desperately looking and/or hoping for bacterial production to kick off to make it more environmentally sustainable, but I haven’t found anything that tastes remotely as good (on its own or in a latte). I drink ultrafiltered milk for what it’s worth, usually 2% so I don’t need the creamy aspect, I just like the flavor.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Only if your tastebuds have failed completely. You probably smoke or have killed your sense of taste by other means if you believe that.

          • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I actually agree with Treczoks about them not tasting remotely the same.

            My wife gets the extra creamy oat milk. I can easily tell it’s not regular milk, and it’s just not for me. I honestly tried to like it.

            • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              It’s a matter of finding the right one, as I’ve already explained in my other comment. Either way, not a reason to get personal.

    • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      61
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It was also drank for thousands and thousands of years, not the most dangerous thing around.

      But we don’t have to take those minor risks in this day and age.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        For thousands of years we shit and drank from the same rivers. That wasn’t the most dangerous thing around either, but I’m kinda glad we stopped that too.

        • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          27
          ·
          6 months ago

          Of course, we’re better off today no doubt.

          But let’s not act like this is ridiculously dangerous for humans to engage in.

          • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            It is though. It’s the mixing thing.

            You can order a steak rare at a restaurant, no worries. They won’t serve you a hamburger that hasn’t reached temperature. There’s only one real difference; your steak has a miniscule chance the cow it came from was sick, while that hamburger has the bacteria of every cow that went into the meat grinder.

            As per the other comments, we have thousands of cows per bottle of milk. 1000x the risk that someone drinking raw milk from their family farm has.

            • CarrierLost@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              (Pedantic, but informative incoming)

              That’s not the reason.

              Cow muscle tissue is dense and difficult for bacteria to penetrate, with a single surface area (the outside) assuming safe handling and “edible freshness”. So cooking the outside to “rare” offers protection by cooking off surface or lightly penetrated bacteria.

              Ground beef is soft and porous, with a massive surface area, much easier for bacteria to penetrate completely.

              However, that aside, your analogy has a sound basis: more input sources = higher opportunity for corruption.

              • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                I thought this was extremely common knowledge. To see that the other person had been getting up voted for his comment at all was really surprising to me.

              • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                Well hey I appreciate it, I genuinely thought what i wrote was the whole thing, I’m glad to know that there’s more, and the details behind it.

                • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  It’s not that there was even more information. It’s that yours is completely incorrect. There is zero to do with how many cows the meat came from. It is exclusively because the bacteria on the outside of the meat gets blended into the inside when it’s turned to hamburger, and that hamburger is more porous and bacteria can more easily travel through it.

            • Asidonhopo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Steak only has bacteria on the surface and only needs the surface to be seared, while hamburger, even from a single cow, has been mixed so that any bacteria is present throughout.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Except it literally is. It’s literally why you’re here right now commenting. Scroll up and read the headline again.

      • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        “Minor risks” being whole families dying or key family members getting poisoned as we transitioned to a society where most folks don’t own their own cow/source of milk.

        It’s dangerous to assume all those years of use were a utopia. We used leaded gas for how long and are only just now getting to understand the ramifications?

        By your mindset poisoning a future generation with lead is a “minor risk” we dealt with back then…

      • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Uhhhh what? Milk was rearly drank and was processed into other things. That processing made it safer to eat. Also, massive industrial farming ensures one sick cow leads to hundreds of other sick cows. So now one gallon of milk is a mix from hundreds of cows and could come from hundreds of miles away.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          It isn’t even realistic medieval logic. They drank beer back then because the low alcohol content would kill some of the nasty shit making it safer than water or milk. I imagine if an adult asked for some milk back then, they’d be asked to see the baby.

      • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        The average life expectancy for a human was also less than 30 for thousands and thousands of years.

        • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          Not it wasn’t.

          The average life expectancy wasn’t all to different from today, infant mortality was crazy high though. But if you survived childhood you were pretty set.

          • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Yes it was. We can argue about why it was which is what you’re doing, but it was less than 30. There was a spike in deaths before 30 and after 55. Even still 55 is a much lower number than 80.

            The exact cause of the statistic isn’t really the point though, the point is that just because humanity did something for thousands of years does not mean it was ok. Being a human was pretty damn awful for a very long time for a number of reasons including disease which is the point of this thread, that raw milk carries disease.

            • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              6 months ago

              I’m not saying it’s okay, only an idiot would willingly do it today when we have access to better methods.

              I’m saying it’s not the most dangerous thing to do, humans have survived just fine alongside the practice.

              • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                Nobody would claim it’s the most dangerous thing to do I hope, that would be a difficult claim to defend.

                My point was that I disagree with your assessment that we survived “just fine”. There are many things far less than fine about human existence particularly going back thousands of years.

                Although I have to wonder what the point is if you agree it’s not a good thing to do, why assert that humanity was just fine alongside the practice? It gives the impression that you’re at the very least dismissing the concerns even if you’re not advocating for it directly.

  • AmidFuror@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    If they had fed the mice ivermectin and turmeric first, and rubbed some urine in their eyes, they would have been immune, probably.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Is turmeric used as some kind of alt-medicine thing?

      kagis

      Ah. Apparently some researcher tried putting out fraudulent papers to make money on some company about two decades back.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curcumin

      Research fraud

      Bharat Aggarwal, a former cancer researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, had 29 papers retracted due to research fraud as of July 2021. Aggarwal’s research had focused on potential anti-cancer properties of herbs and spices, particularly curcumin, and according to a March 2016 article in the Houston Chronicle, “attracted national media interest and laid the groundwork for ongoing clinical trials”.

      Aggarwal cofounded a company in 2004 called Curry Pharmaceuticals based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, which planned to develop drugs based on synthetic analogs of curcumin. SignPath Pharma, a company seeking to develop liposomal formulations of curcumin, licensed three patents by Aggarwal related to that approach from MD Anderson in 2013.

      FDA warnings about dietary supplements

      Between 2018 and 2023, the FDA issued 29 warning letters to American manufacturers of dietary supplements for making false claims of anti-disease effects from using products containing curcumin. In each letter, the FDA stated that the supplement product was not an approved new drug because the “product is not generally recognized as safe and effective” for the advertised uses, that “new drugs may not be legally introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce without prior approval from FDA”, and that the “FDA approves a new drug on the basis of scientific data and information demonstrating that the drug is safe and effective”.

      Alternative medicine

      Though there is no evidence for the safety or efficacy of using curcumin as a therapy, some alternative medicine practitioners give it intravenously, supposedly as a treatment for numerous diseases. In 2017, two serious cases of adverse events were reported from curcumin or turmeric products—one severe allergic reaction and one death—that were caused by administration of a curcumin-polyethylene glycol (PEG40) emulsion product by a naturopath. One treatment caused anaphylaxis leading to death.

    • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      But only if it was a woman’s urine collected during menstruation, then aged for no less than four weeks, having been exposed to no light other than moonlight.

      You can determine potency by the taste.

      /s

  • bulwark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m not a huge fan of milk, but if the FDA says that there’s a potential to get H5N1 from drinking it straight from the cow, they don’t have to tell me twice. Incidentally, I caught H1N1 on the Tokyo subway a few years back. It gave me a really bad fever for a couple of days. Would not recommend.

  • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    “Not to be outdone by China some sections of the USA populace tried to start their own pandemic in 2024 by drinking raw milk from H5N1 infected cows”

  • RBG@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    Everytime I see “riddled” and “virus” together I cannot help but think of that Ricky Gervais/Liam Neeson sketch… “riddled with AIDS”