natural cures

Quoted message said:

Nope. But pointing out even one such insane article does throw a nice
bright spotlight on Mercola's selectivity and judgement.

There's that opinion of yours again. Sorry, but I know and can verify
Dr. Mercola's credentials... and I don't know yours. Given that one
fact, I'd take his opinion over yours any day. And once again, such an
article being "insane" is your opinion. All I had to do was Google the
words PASTEURIZATION MILK and AUTISM to get thousands of hits on the
subject. Right at the top was this very interesting one:

http://www.autismcanada.org/News/HeatKilledBacteriaMarch132003.htm

The first cases of autism started around the early 1940's. During that
time a lot was changing in America. Vaccines were becomming popular,
food refining processes were being developed and yes, pasteurization was
well on its way in.

I fail to see what evidence you have to disprove the article you mention
on Mercola's site. Perhaps that's because I've found so much
information online agreeing with the article.

Quoted message said:

It's not as
though the pasteurization--autism article is the only such, either.
How about those lunatic articles about how microwaves from the sun are
fine, but microwaves from a microwave oven are horribly dangerous
because the former are generated by DC but the latter are generated by
AC?

I have no idea about the AC, DC portion of the article, but it seems
that pubmed disagrees with your assertion that the notion of microwaves
being dangerous is lunatic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12474410&dopt=Abstract

Microwaves from the sun are greatly filtered by our atmosphere.
Microwaves from MW ovens and cell phone towers are not. It is
undisputed that microwaves can change cellular structure. Don't believe
me? Ask a nurse to heat refrigerated blood in a microwave before use.
They won't do it because they know it'll kill the transfusion recipient.

Quoted message said:

Mercola's site is *riddled* with this kind of [censored] and it's not as
though the lunatic articles have some sort of flag on them to let you
know which ones they are.

Well, once again it's your opinion. If you're not educated enough to
filter out the "[censored]" for yourself then maybe it's not a good site for
you to visit. Personally I find a lot of useful information there.

Quoted message said:

Your posting was cross-posted to three different newsgroups. The
sci.med.nutrition group is relatively scientific, but the
misc.health.alternative group is not. If this bothers you, then
edit your newsgroups line to only go to the groups you want.

Sorry. I just hit reply. I didn't realize I was replying to more than
one group.

Quoted message said:

Well, you're wrong, but you're new here, so I forgive you. I've done
plenty of research myself, including an elimination diet, and milk is
just fine for me, thanks.

Oh now I get it. You agree with me... you're just one of those guys
that gets his rocks off by disagreeing with people. Well, whatever make
you happy... but from here on out, I'm going to require some evidence of
your positions if you expect me to take you seriously. I did a search
of this group for your name and couldn't find a single post from you
where you offered anything other than your opinion. Sorry, but your
opinion has no value to me unless it's supported by something I can
verify... just as I did for you above.

Max.

Quoted message said:

Nope. But pointing out even one such insane article does throw a nice
bright spotlight on Mercola's selectivity and judgement.

There's that opinion of yours again. Sorry, but I know and can verify
Dr. Mercola's credentials... and I don't know yours. Given that one
fact, I'd take his opinion over yours any day. And once again, such an
article being "insane" is your opinion. All I had to do was Google the
words PASTEURIZATION MILK and AUTISM to get thousands of hits on the
subject. Right at the top was this very interesting one:

http://www.autismcanada.org/News/HeatKilledBacteriaMarch132003.htm

The first cases of autism started around the early 1940's. During that
time a lot was changing in America. Vaccines were becomming popular,
food refining processes were being developed and yes, pasteurization was
well on its way in.

I fail to see what evidence you have to disprove the article you mention
on Mercola's site. Perhaps that's because I've found so much
information online agreeing with the article.

Quoted message said:

It's not as
though the pasteurization--autism article is the only such, either.
How about those lunatic articles about how microwaves from the sun are
fine, but microwaves from a microwave oven are horribly dangerous
because the former are generated by DC but the latter are generated by
AC?

I have no idea about the AC, DC portion of the article, but it seems
that pubmed disagrees with your assertion that the notion of microwaves
being dangerous is lunatic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12474410&dopt=Abstract

Microwaves from the sun are greatly filtered by our atmosphere.
Microwaves from MW ovens and cell phone towers are not. It is
undisputed that microwaves can change cellular structure. Don't believe
me? Ask a nurse to heat refrigerated blood in a microwave before use.
They won't do it because they know it'll kill the transfusion recipient.

Quoted message said:

Mercola's site is *riddled* with this kind of [censored] and it's not as
though the lunatic articles have some sort of flag on them to let you
know which ones they are.

Well, once again it's your opinion. If you're not educated enough to
filter out the "[censored]" for yourself then maybe it's not a good site for
you to visit. Personally I find a lot of useful information there.

Quoted message said:

Your posting was cross-posted to three different newsgroups. The
sci.med.nutrition group is relatively scientific, but the
misc.health.alternative group is not. If this bothers you, then
edit your newsgroups line to only go to the groups you want.

Sorry. I just hit reply. I didn't realize I was replying to more than
one group.

Quoted message said:

Well, you're wrong, but you're new here, so I forgive you. I've done
plenty of research myself, including an elimination diet, and milk is
just fine for me, thanks.

Oh now I get it. You agree with me... you're just one of those guys
that gets his rocks off by disagreeing with people. Well, whatever make
you happy... but from here on out, I'm going to require some evidence of
your positions if you expect me to take you seriously. I did a search
of this group for your name and couldn't find a single post from you
where you offered anything other than your opinion. Sorry, but your
opinion has no value to me unless it's supported by something I can
verify... just as I did for you above.

Max.

Quoted message said:

Nope. But pointing out even one such insane article does throw a nice
bright spotlight on Mercola's selectivity and judgement.

There's that opinion of yours again. Sorry, but I know and can verify
Dr. Mercola's credentials... and I don't know yours. Given that one
fact, I'd take his opinion over yours any day. And once again, such an
article being "insane" is your opinion. All I had to do was Google the
words PASTEURIZATION MILK and AUTISM to get thousands of hits on the
subject. Right at the top was this very interesting one:

http://www.autismcanada.org/News/HeatKilledBacteriaMarch132003.htm

The first cases of autism started around the early 1940's. During that
time a lot was changing in America. Vaccines were becomming popular,
food refining processes were being developed and yes, pasteurization was
well on its way in.

I fail to see what evidence you have to disprove the article you mention
on Mercola's site. Perhaps that's because I've found so much
information online agreeing with the article.

Quoted message said:

It's not as
though the pasteurization--autism article is the only such, either.
How about those lunatic articles about how microwaves from the sun are
fine, but microwaves from a microwave oven are horribly dangerous
because the former are generated by DC but the latter are generated by
AC?

I have no idea about the AC, DC portion of the article, but it seems
that pubmed disagrees with your assertion that the notion of microwaves
being dangerous is lunatic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12474410&dopt=Abstract

Microwaves from the sun are greatly filtered by our atmosphere.
Microwaves from MW ovens and cell phone towers are not. It is
undisputed that microwaves can change cellular structure. Don't believe
me? Ask a nurse to heat refrigerated blood in a microwave before use.
They won't do it because they know it'll kill the transfusion recipient.

Quoted message said:

Mercola's site is *riddled* with this kind of [censored] and it's not as
though the lunatic articles have some sort of flag on them to let you
know which ones they are.

Well, once again it's your opinion. If you're not educated enough to
filter out the "[censored]" for yourself then maybe it's not a good site for
you to visit. Personally I find a lot of useful information there.

Quoted message said:

Your posting was cross-posted to three different newsgroups. The
sci.med.nutrition group is relatively scientific, but the
misc.health.alternative group is not. If this bothers you, then
edit your newsgroups line to only go to the groups you want.

Sorry. I just hit reply. I didn't realize I was replying to more than
one group.

Quoted message said:

Well, you're wrong, but you're new here, so I forgive you. I've done
plenty of research myself, including an elimination diet, and milk is
just fine for me, thanks.

Oh now I get it. You agree with me... you're just one of those guys
that gets his rocks off by disagreeing with people. Well, whatever make
you happy... but from here on out, I'm going to require some evidence of
your positions if you expect me to take you seriously. I did a search
of this group for your name and couldn't find a single post from you
where you offered anything other than your opinion. Sorry, but your
opinion has no value to me unless it's supported by something I can
verify... just as I did for you above.

Max.

Quoted message said:

Nope. But pointing out even one such insane article does throw a nice
bright spotlight on Mercola's selectivity and judgement.

There's that opinion of yours again. Sorry, but I know and can verify
Dr. Mercola's credentials... and I don't know yours. Given that one
fact, I'd take his opinion over yours any day. And once again, such an
article being "insane" is your opinion. All I had to do was Google the
words PASTEURIZATION MILK and AUTISM to get thousands of hits on the
subject. Right at the top was this very interesting one:

http://www.autismcanada.org/News/HeatKilledBacteriaMarch132003.htm

The first cases of autism started around the early 1940's. During that
time a lot was changing in America. Vaccines were becomming popular,
food refining processes were being developed and yes, pasteurization was
well on its way in.

I fail to see what evidence you have to disprove the article you mention
on Mercola's site. Perhaps that's because I've found so much
information online agreeing with the article.

Quoted message said:

It's not as
though the pasteurization--autism article is the only such, either.
How about those lunatic articles about how microwaves from the sun are
fine, but microwaves from a microwave oven are horribly dangerous
because the former are generated by DC but the latter are generated by
AC?

I have no idea about the AC, DC portion of the article, but it seems
that pubmed disagrees with your assertion that the notion of microwaves
being dangerous is lunatic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12474410&dopt=Abstract

Microwaves from the sun are greatly filtered by our atmosphere.
Microwaves from MW ovens and cell phone towers are not. It is
undisputed that microwaves can change cellular structure. Don't believe
me? Ask a nurse to heat refrigerated blood in a microwave before use.
They won't do it because they know it'll kill the transfusion recipient.

Quoted message said:

Mercola's site is *riddled* with this kind of [censored] and it's not as
though the lunatic articles have some sort of flag on them to let you
know which ones they are.

Well, once again it's your opinion. If you're not educated enough to
filter out the "[censored]" for yourself then maybe it's not a good site for
you to visit. Personally I find a lot of useful information there.

Quoted message said:

Your posting was cross-posted to three different newsgroups. The
sci.med.nutrition group is relatively scientific, but the
misc.health.alternative group is not. If this bothers you, then
edit your newsgroups line to only go to the groups you want.

Sorry. I just hit reply. I didn't realize I was replying to more than
one group.

Quoted message said:

Well, you're wrong, but you're new here, so I forgive you. I've done
plenty of research myself, including an elimination diet, and milk is
just fine for me, thanks.

Oh now I get it. You agree with me... you're just one of those guys
that gets his rocks off by disagreeing with people. Well, whatever make
you happy... but from here on out, I'm going to require some evidence of
your positions if you expect me to take you seriously. I did a search
of this group for your name and couldn't find a single post from you
where you offered anything other than your opinion. Sorry, but your
opinion has no value to me unless it's supported by something I can
verify... just as I did for you above.

Max.

Quoted message said:

Nope. But pointing out even one such insane article does throw a nice
bright spotlight on Mercola's selectivity and judgement.

There's that opinion of yours again. Sorry, but I know and can verify
Dr. Mercola's credentials... and I don't know yours. Given that one
fact, I'd take his opinion over yours any day. And once again, such an
article being "insane" is your opinion. All I had to do was Google the
words PASTEURIZATION MILK and AUTISM to get thousands of hits on the
subject. Right at the top was this very interesting one:

http://www.autismcanada.org/News/HeatKilledBacteriaMarch132003.htm

The first cases of autism started around the early 1940's. During that
time a lot was changing in America. Vaccines were becomming popular,
food refining processes were being developed and yes, pasteurization was
well on its way in.

I fail to see what evidence you have to disprove the article you mention
on Mercola's site. Perhaps that's because I've found so much
information online agreeing with the article.

Quoted message said:

It's not as
though the pasteurization--autism article is the only such, either.
How about those lunatic articles about how microwaves from the sun are
fine, but microwaves from a microwave oven are horribly dangerous
because the former are generated by DC but the latter are generated by
AC?

I have no idea about the AC, DC portion of the article, but it seems
that pubmed disagrees with your assertion that the notion of microwaves
being dangerous is lunatic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12474410&dopt=Abstract

Microwaves from the sun are greatly filtered by our atmosphere.
Microwaves from MW ovens and cell phone towers are not. It is
undisputed that microwaves can change cellular structure. Don't believe
me? Ask a nurse to heat refrigerated blood in a microwave before use.
They won't do it because they know it'll kill the transfusion recipient.

Quoted message said:

Mercola's site is *riddled* with this kind of [censored] and it's not as
though the lunatic articles have some sort of flag on them to let you
know which ones they are.

Well, once again it's your opinion. If you're not educated enough to
filter out the "[censored]" for yourself then maybe it's not a good site for
you to visit. Personally I find a lot of useful information there.

Quoted message said:

Your posting was cross-posted to three different newsgroups. The
sci.med.nutrition group is relatively scientific, but the
misc.health.alternative group is not. If this bothers you, then
edit your newsgroups line to only go to the groups you want.

Sorry. I just hit reply. I didn't realize I was replying to more than
one group.

Quoted message said:

Well, you're wrong, but you're new here, so I forgive you. I've done
plenty of research myself, including an elimination diet, and milk is
just fine for me, thanks.

Oh now I get it. You agree with me... you're just one of those guys
that gets his rocks off by disagreeing with people. Well, whatever make
you happy... but from here on out, I'm going to require some evidence of
your positions if you expect me to take you seriously. I did a search
of this group for your name and couldn't find a single post from you
where you offered anything other than your opinion. Sorry, but your
opinion has no value to me unless it's supported by something I can
verify... just as I did for you above.

Max.

George said:

Maybe the point of the discussion should be whether cow's milk is
actually a healthy food item.

"Max C." <[email hidden]> replied:

Quoted message said:

It would appear from this sentence that you have not reviewed the links
I provided. Otherwise you would have started to develop a distinction
between store-bought milk and raw milk.

You're still lumping it all together in one category.

I am lumping both store-bought milk and raw cow's milk together
because those with an intolerance to the heavy, thick casein protein
contained with cow's milk.

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within raw
cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained within
store-bought cow's milk?

George said:

Maybe the point of the discussion should be whether cow's milk is
actually a healthy food item.

"Max C." <[email hidden]> replied:

Quoted message said:

It would appear from this sentence that you have not reviewed the links
I provided. Otherwise you would have started to develop a distinction
between store-bought milk and raw milk.

You're still lumping it all together in one category.

I am lumping both store-bought milk and raw cow's milk together
because those with an intolerance to the heavy, thick casein protein
contained with cow's milk.

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within raw
cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained within
store-bought cow's milk?

George said:

Maybe the point of the discussion should be whether cow's milk is
actually a healthy food item.

"Max C." <[email hidden]> replied:

Quoted message said:

It would appear from this sentence that you have not reviewed the links
I provided. Otherwise you would have started to develop a distinction
between store-bought milk and raw milk.

You're still lumping it all together in one category.

I am lumping both store-bought milk and raw cow's milk together
because those with an intolerance to the heavy, thick casein protein
contained with cow's milk.

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within raw
cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained within
store-bought cow's milk?

George said:

Maybe the point of the discussion should be whether cow's milk is
actually a healthy food item.

"Max C." <[email hidden]> replied:

Quoted message said:

It would appear from this sentence that you have not reviewed the links
I provided. Otherwise you would have started to develop a distinction
between store-bought milk and raw milk.

You're still lumping it all together in one category.

I am lumping both store-bought milk and raw cow's milk together
because those with an intolerance to the heavy, thick casein protein
contained with cow's milk.

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within raw
cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained within
store-bought cow's milk?

George said:

Maybe the point of the discussion should be whether cow's milk is
actually a healthy food item.

"Max C." <[email hidden]> replied:

Quoted message said:

It would appear from this sentence that you have not reviewed the links
I provided. Otherwise you would have started to develop a distinction
between store-bought milk and raw milk.

You're still lumping it all together in one category.

I am lumping both store-bought milk and raw cow's milk together
because those with an intolerance to the heavy, thick casein protein
contained with cow's milk.

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within raw
cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained within
store-bought cow's milk?

George said:

Maybe the point of the discussion should be whether cow's milk is
actually a healthy food item.

"Max C." <[email hidden]> replied:

Quoted message said:

It would appear from this sentence that you have not reviewed the links
I provided. Otherwise you would have started to develop a distinction
between store-bought milk and raw milk.

You're still lumping it all together in one category.

I am lumping both store-bought milk and raw cow's milk together
because those with an intolerance to the heavy, thick casein protein
contained with cow's milk.

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within raw
cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained within
store-bought cow's milk?

Quoted message said:

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within raw
cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained within
store-bought cow's milk?

Well, you're asking the wrong question again. If I had to guess, I
would say that there are fairly equal amounts of casein in both
pasteurized and raw milk. However, there are 2 fundamental differences:

1 - it is possible (though I couldn't find anything online to
substantiate this) that casein may become partially denatured during the
pasteurization process. Denaturization of proteins is common in cooked
foods and can be more difficult for our digestive systems.

2 - more importantly, raw milk still has caseinase in tact and active.
Caseinase is the specific proteolytic enzyme that acts on casein once
the milk reaches a certain pH level. The same goes for all raw foods.
The metabolic enzymes of one living thing become digestive enzymes once
that living thing becomes a food. Pasteurization kills the enzyme
activity in milk. In fact, one of the tests for proper pasteurization
is a check for the enzyme phosphatase. If the milk lacks phosphatase,
it's considered "clean."

The lack of enzymes in pasteurized milk is really at the heart of the
debate. Many people who thought they were "casein sensitive" or
"lactose intolerant" find that if they slowly add raw milk to their diet
that they can use dairy products again.

So, again, check those web sites for a more in depth look in to what I
just said. Your questions are valid=3F but they've already been answered
in those web sites.

Max.

Quoted message said:

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within raw
cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained within
store-bought cow's milk?

Well, you're asking the wrong question again. If I had to guess, I
would say that there are fairly equal amounts of casein in both
pasteurized and raw milk. However, there are 2 fundamental differences:

1 - it is possible (though I couldn't find anything online to
substantiate this) that casein may become partially denatured during the
pasteurization process. Denaturization of proteins is common in cooked
foods and can be more difficult for our digestive systems.

2 - more importantly, raw milk still has caseinase in tact and active.
Caseinase is the specific proteolytic enzyme that acts on casein once
the milk reaches a certain pH level. The same goes for all raw foods.
The metabolic enzymes of one living thing become digestive enzymes once
that living thing becomes a food. Pasteurization kills the enzyme
activity in milk. In fact, one of the tests for proper pasteurization
is a check for the enzyme phosphatase. If the milk lacks phosphatase,
it's considered "clean."

The lack of enzymes in pasteurized milk is really at the heart of the
debate. Many people who thought they were "casein sensitive" or
"lactose intolerant" find that if they slowly add raw milk to their diet
that they can use dairy products again.

So, again, check those web sites for a more in depth look in to what I
just said. Your questions are valid=3F but they've already been answered
in those web sites.

Max.

Quoted message said:

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within raw
cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained within
store-bought cow's milk?

Well, you're asking the wrong question again. If I had to guess, I
would say that there are fairly equal amounts of casein in both
pasteurized and raw milk. However, there are 2 fundamental differences:

1 - it is possible (though I couldn't find anything online to
substantiate this) that casein may become partially denatured during the
pasteurization process. Denaturization of proteins is common in cooked
foods and can be more difficult for our digestive systems.

2 - more importantly, raw milk still has caseinase in tact and active.
Caseinase is the specific proteolytic enzyme that acts on casein once
the milk reaches a certain pH level. The same goes for all raw foods.
The metabolic enzymes of one living thing become digestive enzymes once
that living thing becomes a food. Pasteurization kills the enzyme
activity in milk. In fact, one of the tests for proper pasteurization
is a check for the enzyme phosphatase. If the milk lacks phosphatase,
it's considered "clean."

The lack of enzymes in pasteurized milk is really at the heart of the
debate. Many people who thought they were "casein sensitive" or
"lactose intolerant" find that if they slowly add raw milk to their diet
that they can use dairy products again.

So, again, check those web sites for a more in depth look in to what I
just said. Your questions are valid=3F but they've already been answered
in those web sites.

Max.

Quoted message said:

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within raw
cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained within
store-bought cow's milk?

Well, you're asking the wrong question again. If I had to guess, I
would say that there are fairly equal amounts of casein in both
pasteurized and raw milk. However, there are 2 fundamental differences:

1 - it is possible (though I couldn't find anything online to
substantiate this) that casein may become partially denatured during the
pasteurization process. Denaturization of proteins is common in cooked
foods and can be more difficult for our digestive systems.

2 - more importantly, raw milk still has caseinase in tact and active.
Caseinase is the specific proteolytic enzyme that acts on casein once
the milk reaches a certain pH level. The same goes for all raw foods.
The metabolic enzymes of one living thing become digestive enzymes once
that living thing becomes a food. Pasteurization kills the enzyme
activity in milk. In fact, one of the tests for proper pasteurization
is a check for the enzyme phosphatase. If the milk lacks phosphatase,
it's considered "clean."

The lack of enzymes in pasteurized milk is really at the heart of the
debate. Many people who thought they were "casein sensitive" or
"lactose intolerant" find that if they slowly add raw milk to their diet
that they can use dairy products again.

So, again, check those web sites for a more in depth look in to what I
just said. Your questions are valid=3F but they've already been answered
in those web sites.

Max.

Quoted message said:

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within raw
cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained within
store-bought cow's milk?

Well, you're asking the wrong question again. If I had to guess, I
would say that there are fairly equal amounts of casein in both
pasteurized and raw milk. However, there are 2 fundamental differences:

1 - it is possible (though I couldn't find anything online to
substantiate this) that casein may become partially denatured during the
pasteurization process. Denaturization of proteins is common in cooked
foods and can be more difficult for our digestive systems.

2 - more importantly, raw milk still has caseinase in tact and active.
Caseinase is the specific proteolytic enzyme that acts on casein once
the milk reaches a certain pH level. The same goes for all raw foods.
The metabolic enzymes of one living thing become digestive enzymes once
that living thing becomes a food. Pasteurization kills the enzyme
activity in milk. In fact, one of the tests for proper pasteurization
is a check for the enzyme phosphatase. If the milk lacks phosphatase,
it's considered "clean."

The lack of enzymes in pasteurized milk is really at the heart of the
debate. Many people who thought they were "casein sensitive" or
"lactose intolerant" find that if they slowly add raw milk to their diet
that they can use dairy products again.

So, again, check those web sites for a more in depth look in to what I
just said. Your questions are valid=3F but they've already been answered
in those web sites.

Max.

Quoted message said:

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within raw
cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained within
store-bought cow's milk?

Well, you're asking the wrong question again. If I had to guess, I
would say that there are fairly equal amounts of casein in both
pasteurized and raw milk. However, there are 2 fundamental differences:

1 - it is possible (though I couldn't find anything online to
substantiate this) that casein may become partially denatured during the
pasteurization process. Denaturization of proteins is common in cooked
foods and can be more difficult for our digestive systems.

2 - more importantly, raw milk still has caseinase in tact and active.
Caseinase is the specific proteolytic enzyme that acts on casein once
the milk reaches a certain pH level. The same goes for all raw foods.
The metabolic enzymes of one living thing become digestive enzymes once
that living thing becomes a food. Pasteurization kills the enzyme
activity in milk. In fact, one of the tests for proper pasteurization
is a check for the enzyme phosphatase. If the milk lacks phosphatase,
it's considered "clean."

The lack of enzymes in pasteurized milk is really at the heart of the
debate. Many people who thought they were "casein sensitive" or
"lactose intolerant" find that if they slowly add raw milk to their diet
that they can use dairy products again.

So, again, check those web sites for a more in depth look in to what I
just said. Your questions are valid=3F but they've already been answered
in those web sites.

Max.

Max C. said:

Quoted message said:

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within

raw

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained

within

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

store-bought cow's milk?

Well, you're asking the wrong question again. If I had to guess, I
would say that there are fairly equal amounts of casein in both
pasteurized and raw milk. However, there are 2 fundamental differences:

Thanks for the info.

Max C. said:

Quoted message said:

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within

raw

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained

within

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

store-bought cow's milk?

Well, you're asking the wrong question again. If I had to guess, I
would say that there are fairly equal amounts of casein in both
pasteurized and raw milk. However, there are 2 fundamental differences:

Thanks for the info.

Max C. said:

Quoted message said:

So, in regards to cow's milk casein protein issue, does anyone
have information whether the amount of casein protein contained within

raw

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cow's milk differs from the amount to the casein protein contained

within

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

store-bought cow's milk?

Well, you're asking the wrong question again. If I had to guess, I
would say that there are fairly equal amounts of casein in both
pasteurized and raw milk. However, there are 2 fundamental differences:

Thanks for the info.