Comments on: Pasteur

By: Is the battle FOR or AGAINST bacteria? « The Bovine

Is the battle FOR or AGAINST bacteria? « The Bovine — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:40:29 +0000

[...] Pasteur [...]

By: sue maxwell

sue maxwell — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:17:32 +0000

I agree completely and have read that death bed statement numerous times. Many doctors practice medicine using Gerard’s ideas and are successful. Many people also drink raw milk with no problem- the cows have to be healthy- not the type we grow today- they have to be outdoors and living a normal life.

I just reread the quote in Oliver Sack’s book, Awakenings, and wonder if there is a source for it, as I just got into a discussion about it and there was a bit of hostility. Thanks, Sue

By: Level Headed

Level Headed — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:27:09 +0000

Dana says she’s a layperson. Great, nice to hear from yet another one, but I’d like to hear more than JUST a layperson’s opinion.
Blogs attract thousands of laypeople who publish their various opinions (everybody’s got a voice), and that’s great, but without a professional to clear the confusion and help us through, such as someone who is actually a biologist and chemist with both laboratory and real world experience, we are just going to swim in a sea of laypeople comments… that might make a blog exciting, but it fails to answer the core questions posed in the comments here about Pasteur and his germ theory.
A true professional limits their bias to allow for truth to overcome their bias.
Unlike the layperson’s (who usually makes many unverifiable claims), the professional’s claims are verfiable and make sense. The layperson is able to test some of the professional’s arguments to see if they are true, as the professional’s arguments will testify whether or not they actually know what they’re saying.
More laypeople like Dana giving various biased opinions on Pasteur and his germ theory will not help.
Truth is verifiable. If you don’t believe that, then you might as well not believe anything can or is right or good or best, because if truth is not verifiable, then what’s the truth about truth — maybe it doesn’t exist. Maybe you don’t either. Maybe you’re living in the matrix.
But if truth is verifiable, then it exists, and then we can use logic to discover truth via the scientific method of guess, test, until proven true or false.
If most things are unverifiable as Dana claims, then don’t bother with going for the benefits of raw milk, because the Weston A. Price foundation bases all of their research on verifiable information — truth. Check out their powerpoint on raw milk and notice how they provide evidence for their claims about the health of raw milk. REAL, VERIFIABLE, EVIDENCE. Truth.
But some choose to be tossed around with every new conspiracy theory out there. Each to their own I suppose.

By: ronaldo

ronaldo — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:51:47 +0000

Isn’t it common knowledge that viruses are robotic and created in laboratories?

By: Dana

Dana — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:02:05 +0000

Bacteria trade DNA like little kids trade Pokemon cards. They’re downright shameless about it. E. coli is just a label people tacked onto bacteria that look a certain way.

I’m not saying I believe bacteria turn into viruses but hey, maybe they do. Until someone makes the effort to figure it out, they can hardly dismiss the idea.

I’m not convinced lizards evolved into birds, though. I do think birds evolved from reptiles, but lizards are a specific type of reptile. It’s like saying people came from monkeys or chimps, which isn’t correct either. Our relationship with chimps is similar to that of cousins–one did not descend from the other.

By: Dana

Dana — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:59:45 +0000

Current thinking on mitochondria and chloroblasts indicates they most likely evolved from bacteria in symbiotic relationships with their host cells. It would certainly explain why mitochondria always have different DNA than the rest of the cell they reside in.

If enough people think an idea is bunkum they will not make an effort to explore the idea. I’ve seen this happen and I’m a layperson! So, lack of proof does not constitute disproving.

By: Dana

Dana — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:57:26 +0000

Water is potentially lethal in the wrong situation too. Hey! Let’s ban that!

Level Headed thinks we shouldn’t accept any information EVER unless it’s verifiable. There goes 99 percent of human history. Nobody had cameras, nobody had sound recording and none of us from today can go back in time to verify. All we’ve got is–oops–the written record. That means exactly diddly squat.

By: Dana

Dana — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:54:52 +0000

“Viruses are not even living things.” Thanks for showing yourself to be a fraud right there, as scientists are still DEBATING whether or not a virus is a living thing. Most seem to believe it is at this point, since it is classified as such.

I’ve seen enough claptrap passed through official channels in the name of “science” that I’m willing to at least entertain strange ideas because I haven’t seen them disproven. Great, you read books and look at germs under microscopes. That tells us nothing about the whole scope of your work, what you’ve looked at, and what you’ve proven or disproven. My guess is you’re a lab monkey for some big corporation. They turn out bad science too.

By: Level Headed

Level Headed — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:03:11 +0000

This is one of only a few level-headed comments made by a raw milk supporter on this site. skepticalgoatfarmer is right that raw milk can be produced in a way that either is or is not dangerous. It’s not so much about raw or processed milk being healthy or not, it’s really about the bigger picture — from the cow’s health (grass-fed happy cows, or cows on antiobiotics eating other than grass), to the practices of the farm and motives of the farmer (cleanlieness and wise traditions for the purpose of good health, or factory-style big production for the purpose of making more profit), to the cow’s genes (are they the $2 really-red-huge-but-not-the-sweetest strawberries, or the locally-grown-sweeter-smaller-better $4 ones?)… it’s a BIGGER picture than just “raw milk is better”. The raw milk idea is part of better health, but it’s not the answer to all our problems, it’s only a piece of the larger picture .
“Please, let’s actually critically examine scientific evidence from both sides before making claims that could affect peoples lives.”
I’m a supporter of raw milk, but in passing I’ve noticed mistakes made by many involved in this movement… for instance, who has any ACTUAL evidence that Pasteur recanted on his deathbed… we need to be careful not to throw out statements that cannot be backed up by actual verifiable proof, otherwise it makes us look silly at best.
There is no substitute for evidence.
Let’s be critical with ourselves folks, otherwise we’re just going to make ourselves look foolish.
Bold statements need to have strong evidence to back it up, and I suspect people like Dr. Dave would not be so mad at the ideas presented on this site if every statement was made with solid verifiable (referenced!!) evidence. The lack of such would and should tick anyone off, including myself.
Look at the top-right of this page for example:
“Bernard is right; the pathogen is nothing; the terrain is everything.” — Louis Pasteur’s deathbed words
Where is the proof that Pasteur actually said this? (forget for a moment about whether or not the germ theory is or is not exclusively correct) — is this statement about his deathbed words ACTUALLY true? Are we sure? REALLY SURE?
There are many examples like this on this site — stuff that “might be true, and certainly we’d like it to be true, but, well…” we don’t have verifiable evidence if challenged on it.
I’m not disagreeing with the movement.
I am calling for accuracy, reliability, and verifiable sources for ALL claims made.
Interestingly, if you Google Pasteur’s deathbed words, you’ll find that there is no substantial evidence that he said such a thing, only rumors and speculation. I’m not saying he did or didn’t recant — I’m saying there’s no proof! And without proof, no argument should be posted on this site, otherwise we damage ourselves and our mission to make the raw milk movement a well known and respected movement for change.
Stop making respectable people angry with unsubstantiated claims!

By: miguel

miguel — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:41:43 +0000

rhazi,
Your comment:”If it has, please provide that peer reviewed source. E. coli will always remain e. coli and will always look and act like e. coli. If it evolves other forms and features and physical characteristics, it is no longer e. coli.”

Doesn’t the theory of pleomorphism and bacteria(generation time :20 minutes)look a lot like the theory of evolution regarding macroscopic life only condensed into a very short time frame?In the theory of evolution, don’t large organisms change “form,features and physical characteristics”?Of course,when lizards evolve into birds,we don’t still call them lizards,but does that deny that they changed over many generations into birds?The driving force behind pleomorphism or evolution is the same: the struggle to survive in a changing environment.The principle behind both is that the environment determines the form(over many generations).