• pivot_root@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    24 hours ago

    Unpasteurized milk itself isn’t the problem. It’s the consequences of trying to milk cows at an industrial scale that are. You simply can’t keep it free from contamination the entire time from the cow to the grocery store shelf.

    Without pasteurization, the pathogens that make their way into the milk are going to fester. Fresh milk from a cow isn’t going to kill you, but drinking that just might.

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      21 hours ago

      When people carried the milk home, they used it the same day.

      Sometimes a change in weather could spoil it on the way home.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              22 hours ago

              And a terrible parent.

              Also, they think RFK is right about being antivax despite getting heart damage from COVID?

              • crank0271@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                20 hours ago

                As if it wouldn’t be explained away as either 1) a hoax or 2) a conspiracy brought on by one’s political rivals

          • also giving infants 70 shots is insane

            Yoi’re right, letting them get infected with life-threatening diseases with as little protection as possible is much more responsible.

            Only thing this is benefiting is big pharma, they don’t make money off of healthy people.

            This has always been a stupid argument. Imagine two pharmaceutical companies, A and B. A develops a treatment that treats but doesn’t cure a patient. B develops a more expensive treatment, but it completely cures a patient.

            Which company would you want to be a customer of? Obviously B, they can cure you. Pharmaceutical companies are financially incentivised to cure rather than treat.

            Now imagine A also tries to develop a cure. The only was they can compete is by making the cure cheaper, safer or more effective.

            Being the only one with a cure means you can also ask higher prices, as you’ve essentially monopolised a disease.

            This is also self-evident from all the diseases that we’ve found cures for in the last few decades. Even cancer is becoming less and less of a death sentence.

            RFK is right

            He’s wrong.