Guest guest Posted February 18, 2005 Report Share Posted February 18, 2005 Hi , I had pain and discomfort for a long time after the first biopsy, they said it was a little blood clot. The second time around, the pain lasted for about a week or so. Liver biopsy- dull pain one week after? Hello to all-I have AIH. This all started about two months ago.I had a liver biopsy a week ago. My question is, is a dull pain/preasure normal a week a biopsy? I have so much to learn about AIH. This site will be helpful. THANKS-MUCH LOVE-LISA ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2005 Report Share Posted August 25, 2005 , The answers you would get would of course depend on which species' milk you compared with " average " human milk, whether or not you started with assumptions like " more fat is better " " more vitamins are better, " " less lactose is better " and then assumed that those would fit the pre-concieved ideal if and when a mother on a " perfect " diet was available and willing to give her milk for analysis. Whew, run-on sentences, yay! From all I've gathered, the LLL is right in one regard: the MACRONUTRIENT (fat, protein, carbohydrate) composition of human milk does not vary much, not any more than it does between breeds of cattle (which are still cattle and still manage to raise healthy calves on a natural diet despite the minor variations). It's the composition of the fat (not the content), vitamins, minerals and " co-factors " that change, and of course these are significant, but they are derived from diet. If an animal improves its quality of diet while lactating, the quality of the milk improves. Any pre-lactation factors are minor, at best. Though composition varies widely among species, it is pretty constant within species/breeds so that a holstein on grass will produce milk with roughly the same fat content as a holstein on chicken manure, " by-product meal " and hay. Any difference between milk from a woman on an " ideal " diet and one on SAD would not, likely, be detectable by the way they look. Maybe by taste, since we know higher micronutrient levels in plants and animals and their products often make them tastier, but NOT by protein, fat or lactose content, which are what determine the thickness of milk (and it is primarily protein content which provides opacity, not fat so much), and those are roughly the same except in cases of GROSS macronutrient deficiency, that is, of the kind that the mother would be suffering acute clinical deficiency symptoms. These are all things readily learnable by reading articles on dairy animals, even if the data is not specifically available for humans. http://classes.aces.uiuc.edu/AnSci308/milkcomp.html Scroll down on the page links above and there is a handy dandy little chart showing the milk composition of varying species of animals. Humans are humans, descended from monkeys. We are not cows, our diets are not like cows, our nursing patterns are not like cows. You could say the same thing for goats, camels, sheep, or any other ruminant. That said, those milks have worked for many people. So that proves there is some amount of flexibility in the system, NOT that more fat is better. Interestingly, all equidae (horses, asses, zebras) have extremely thin, very sugary milk. Would you say that foals are better off nursing from seals, then, since their natural mothers produce such " worthless " milk? Thin milk seems to have evolved among many species, particularly those that nurse very frequently and develop slowly, like humans. I, as a human, had thin, watery, sugary milk (the hindmilk was indeed much thicker, but that was not what was generally expressable and observable). My daughter has fairly straight teeth (they've gone a little downhill since we've been living with my junk food in-laws, and that was AFTER she stopped nursing - that will be remedied very shortly - BIG yay!), a wide face, and is about half again to twice as " advanced " as other children her age. My 2 cents. - > I don't have a list of everything that's missing > from garbage human > milk. Nobody's studying it. At best, it's an > infant field. However, look > at the milk of other species, and see what's missing > when GIGO is the > active principle: fat, omega 3s, carotenes, > vitamins, enzymes, proteins, > etc. etc. etc. > > > > - > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2005 Report Share Posted August 25, 2005 - >The answers you would get would of course depend on >which species' milk you compared with " average " human >milk, whether or not you started with assumptions like > " more fat is better " " more vitamins are better, " " less >lactose is better " and then assumed that those would >fit the pre-concieved ideal if and when a mother on a > " perfect " diet was available and willing to give her >milk for analysis. Whew, run-on sentences, yay! OK, I'm going to say this for the last time -- and I'm addressing this to everyone who has the same bizarre misconception about what I'm saying, not just to you. I am NOT saying mothers' milk is bad if it doesn't resemble the milk of XYZ species. I am NOT saying milk from a woman eating a crappy modern diet is bad because it doesn't have the same nutrient levels and percentages as, say, grass-fed cow's milk. I am NOT saying that XYZ species should be the benchmark for human milk. What I AM saying is that the nutritional quality of the milk from all species we have data on varies EXTREMELY widely depending on the diet of the lactating animal (and almost certainly on other factors like the health of the lactating animal's mother during pregnancy and nursing). The quality of cows' milk, for example, can range from garbage to extremely nutritious. Therefore, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for assuming that the quality of human milk doesn't also vary extremely widely based on the mother's health and diet (and almost certainly other factors too, as mentioned above). It is in fact a FANTASY to assume that a nursing mother produces great milk regardless of her health and nutritional status. > From all I've gathered, the LLL is right in one >regard: the MACRONUTRIENT (fat, protein, carbohydrate) >composition of human milk does not vary much, not any >more than it does between breeds of cattle (which are >still cattle and still manage to raise healthy calves >on a natural diet despite the minor variations). This is a slightly less unlikely assertion, but I'm not inclined to believe it. First, the macronutrient composition of the milk of other species DOES actually vary substantially based on diet, and second, every anecdotal report I've come across about the milk from SAD mothers is that it's thin and watery, like lowfat or nonfat cows' milk, and very sweet. But what data there is out there on the ideal composition of human milk indicates that it should be richer -- i.e. much fattier -- than this. >Any >pre-lactation factors are minor, at best. On what do you base this rather bizarre assertion? and I both have posted about dramatic multi-generational effects -- and those aren't even nearly as proximate as the diet of the mother before lactation (and even pregnancy) begins! > Though >composition varies widely among species, it is pretty >constant within species/breeds so that a holstein on >grass will produce milk with roughly the same fat >content as a holstein on chicken manure, " by-product >meal " and hay. Not really true either. Even the level of fat in Holstein milk can vary more widely than you'd think depending on diet. Farmers have reported that when grazing Holsteins on good grass pasture and not feeding them hormones and other crap, the fat content of their milk increases substantially. IIRC, someone mentioned an increase of as much as a whole percent or more. And Jerseys can also be dietarily induced to produce lower-fat milk. >Any difference between milk from a >woman on an " ideal " diet and one on SAD would not, >likely, be detectable by the way they look. Has anyone on this list EVER discussed the visual appearance of human milk? Well, OK, I guess suppositions about carotene content count, but if carotenes are a meaningful component of human milk under ideal conditions (and I have no idea if they are, but it seems reasonable that they might) then visual examination actually would be somewhat revealing, just as we seek out cream-colored dairy rather than white when looking for cow milk and cream. >Any difference between milk from a >woman on an " ideal " diet and one on SAD would not, >likely, be detectable by the way they look. Maybe by >taste, since we know higher micronutrient levels in >plants and animals and their products often make them >tastier, but NOT by protein, fat or lactose content, >which are what determine the thickness of milk (and it >is primarily protein content which provides opacity, >not fat so much), and those are roughly the same >except in cases of GROSS macronutrient deficiency, >that is, of the kind that the mother would be >suffering acute clinical deficiency symptoms. If you call grass-fed Jersey milk and confinement supermarket Holstein milk " roughly the same " , then maybe, but I wouldn't say the two are even remotely similar, let alone " roughly the same " -- in appearance, taste or any other meaningful measure. >http://classes.aces.uiuc.edu/AnSci308/milkcomp.html >Scroll down on the page links above and there is a >handy dandy little chart showing the milk composition >of varying species of animals. Humans are humans, >descended from monkeys. And how were the figures for human milk arrived at? By testing people eating modern diets? By comparing them to the milk of Price's healthy natives? I expect the answers are yes and no, respectively. > We are not cows, our diets are >not like cows, our nursing patterns are not like cows. Yes, and aliens are not rotoscoping my laser printer, Voorhees is not knocking at my door, and I'm not teleporting milk chocolate candies into the center of the sun. >Interestingly, all equidae (horses, asses, zebras) >have extremely thin, very sugary milk. Would you say >that foals are better off nursing from seals, then, >since their natural mothers produce such " worthless " >milk? Let's see... Equidae are herbivores, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that their milk would be more carby. Humans are omnivores best-adapted to a high-fat diet. See the difference? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2005 Report Share Posted August 25, 2005 > But what > data there is out there on the ideal composition of human milk indicates > that it should be richer -- i.e. much fattier -- than this. What data? > > >Any > >pre-lactation factors are minor, at best. > > On what do you base this rather bizarre assertion? and I both have > posted about dramatic multi-generational effects -- and those aren't even > nearly as proximate as the diet of the mother before lactation (and even > pregnancy) begins! Though important, multi-generational effects are minor compared to dietary variation. Take a factory cow and put her on grass and her milk will change, dramatically, and almost immediately. What I see you advocating, reversed, is raising her calves on a mixture of human milk and other substances because the humans have been eating better for THEIR species for more generations. How is this going to improve things? It seems, pardon the expression, to be " jumping the gun. " I would rather see healthy grandchildren and know that I nursed my children so that they could get full benefit of their species' milk (inferior as it may be to that from multi-generational healthy diets) than WONDER and WORRY for the rest of my life whether I advanced things or slowed them, or worse, passed on a negative meme because I fed them a concoction that has little resemblance to breast milk. > Not really true either. Even the level of fat in Holstein milk can vary > more widely than you'd think depending on diet. Farmers have reported that > when grazing Holsteins on good grass pasture and not feeding them hormones > and other crap, the fat content of their milk increases > substantially. IIRC, someone mentioned an increase of as much as a whole > percent or more. And Jerseys can also be dietarily induced to produce > lower-fat milk. One whole percent will not turn thin, watery milk into thick, rich milk. There is more variation in fat content between the milk of individuals in the same species than that improvement. Change for the better is, of course, better, but you still seem to be assuming that more fat is better... I guess what it boils down to is fat content is not the be-all end-all measurement, not for humans or any other species, and a change of " one whole percent " is not going to make a difference when the difference between individual mothers can be greater than that. Vitamins, trace minerals, co-factors, and fat quality are far more important. > > Has anyone on this list EVER discussed the visual appearance of human milk? You did, describing its appearance as thin and watery, right? Or was that someone else? And saying this was bad? > > > Let's see... Equidae are herbivores, so it doesn't surprise me in the > least that their milk would be more carby. Humans are omnivores > best-adapted to a high-fat diet. See the difference? Yes, Equidae are herbivores. So are reindeer and other deer. Peruse that chart a little more thoroughly and you will see that reindeer milk averages a whopping 22% fat content, with " deer " at 19%. Reindeer and other deer hide their young while they browse, leaving them in a safe place so that they can flee danger faster. You'll notice that the lowest fat content is the kangaroo, who is vegetarian, like reindeer, but whose young are latched on continuously. The richness of the milk of a given species has almost nothing to do with diet, and almost everything to do with how often the infant nurses. High fat or not for the adults doesn't matter a whit in comparison. Thus it is no surprise then that seal milk is over 50% fat and is the richest milk of all species listed, not because seals eat a lot of fat but because seals are known to leave their pups for days at a time. Maybe this is where you were confused? We descended from great-apes, who tend to carry their young all day long, and nurse on-demand. Infant nursing animals need a certain amount of fat to grow on per day, and those that get it all in one or three feedings (or even less than that) get a lot more per feeding than those who get it in 20 or more feedings, such as humans and our kin, the great apes. We are not very different from chimpanzees genetically. Just as blood cholesterol does not change much with diet, milk fat does not change much either (the 1% figure aside) because milk-fat of all species is synthesized in the breasts from base components. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2005 Report Share Posted August 25, 2005 On 8/25/05, <ka_lanu@...> wrote: > Though important, multi-generational effects are minor compared to > dietary variation. Take a factory cow and put her on grass and her > milk will change, dramatically, and almost immediately. I think a problem here is that the multi-generational effects that I cited are not related to milk-production, and the one's cited have an ambiguous mechanism. The multi-generational effects are seen in the end-points, possibly not in the nursing milk. So, the effect cited of formula feeding for the mother's in utero nutrition might act through the ova developed early in life, rather than through her nursing capacity. The effect I cited concerned the ability of dietary DHA-depletion to cause brain DHA-depletion. I'm not sure if multi-generational effects have been studied in nursing, but unless you are referring to studies we haven't mentioned, I'm not sure how you can have a basis for your claim. The multi-generational effects are specifically distinguished by their ability to trump dietary modification. For example, even drastic dietary DHA depletion to the point of not feeding any produces only moderate brain depletion in the first generation, but produces nearly complete brain depletion in the third generation. I suspect the multi-generational effects on breast milk are lessened. It appears that milk tends to reflect what is provided by diet rather than what is provided by body storage, for example, although obviously if diet is not meeting the immediate needs of the mother and the infant, then the mother must rely on stored nutrients, the absence of which could compromise the milk to some degree. > One whole percent will not turn thin, watery milk into thick, rich > milk. There is more variation in fat content between the milk of > individuals in the same species than that improvement. The discussion was already about intra-species variation, so I don't see what your point is, other than to imply that underestimated the significance of his own point. In any case, " one percent " can be a lot or a little depending on what you mean. I think what was being referred to was an absolute percentage point by weight, not a relative percentage point, nor a percentage point by calorie, both of which would be incredibly small. If the milk is 3% by weight, then 4% by weight would be a 33% relative difference, which is pretty large. > Change for the better is, of course, better, but you still seem to be assuming that > more fat is better... I would like to see data of traditional peoples on primitive diets that have been optimally healthy for generations. It's been years since I read NAPD and I don't know if Price took such measurements. But in any case, in the absence of any data, more fat = healthier seems sort of obvious, since fat and cholesterol are the major nutrients needed for brain development, myelination, etc. > I guess what it boils down to is fat content is not the be-all end-all > measurement, not for humans or any other species, and a change of " one > whole percent " is not going to make a difference when the difference > between individual mothers can be greater than that. Vitamins, trace > minerals, co-factors, and fat quality are far more important. The difference between individual mothers is precisely what was being referred to! > Yes, Equidae are herbivores. So are reindeer and other deer. Peruse > that chart a little more thoroughly and you will see that reindeer > milk averages a whopping 22% fat content, with " deer " at 19%. Reindeer > and other deer hide their young while they browse, leaving them in a > safe place so that they can flee danger faster. You'll notice that the > lowest fat content is the kangaroo, who is vegetarian, like reindeer, > but whose young are latched on continuously. The richness of the milk > of a given species has almost nothing to do with diet, and almost > everything to do with how often the infant nurses. High fat or not for > the adults doesn't matter a whit in comparison. Thus it is no surprise > then that seal milk is over 50% fat and is the richest milk of all > species listed, not because seals eat a lot of fat but because seals > are known to leave their pups for days at a time. > Maybe this is where you were confused? I will have to look at this chart, as I skipped it before. But as far as I know, healthy human milk is 50-60% fat by calorie, which is what you must be referring to, as I can imagine a 50% fat milk by weight, though I suppose it's possible. But in that case, the variation is probably due to an inverse relationship with water variation. If so, the variation in total solid concentration would explain the phenomenon you're discussing, and be quite irrelevant as well. > We descended from great-apes, who tend to carry their young all day > long, and nurse on-demand. Infant nursing animals need a certain > amount of fat to grow on per day, and those that get it all in one or > three feedings (or even less than that) get a lot more per feeding > than those who get it in 20 or more feedings, such as humans and our > kin, the great apes. This is utterly besides the point. The same is true for carbs and protein. The percentage by weight is irrelevant, because what's being discussed is the percentage of total solids that need to be fat! Obviously this percentage needs to be taken as a percent of the total SOLIDS, not the total weight of the milk including WATER. > We are not very different from chimpanzees > genetically. Just as blood cholesterol does not change much with diet, > milk fat does not change much either (the 1% figure aside) because > milk-fat of all species is synthesized in the breasts from base > components. Base components? That come from where, if not diet? The fifth dimension? Chris -- Want the other side of the cholesterol story? Find out what your doctor isn't telling you: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2005 Report Share Posted August 26, 2005 - >What data? I've already referred to Dr. Kwasniewski's Optimal Diet figures on the composition of human milk and the WAPF's modestly different numbers. >Though important, multi-generational effects are minor compared to >dietary variation. Proximal diet is obviously the most potent single factor, but what possible basis do you have for calling cross-generational effects " minor " ? A single generation, as pointed out, can deplete the DHA content of someone's brain by FIFTEEN PERCENT. That's far from minor. And as I mentioned, mothers who are bottle-fed wind up causing their nursed children to have a substantially increased incidence of insulin resistance and obesity. As I can assure you from personal experience, that's anything but minor. Granted, nobody knows yet whether these problems are directly caused by nursing or other factors, but cross-generational effects themselves are profound. >Take a factory cow and put her on grass and her >milk will change, dramatically, and almost immediately. Yes, of course. But compare the milk from that cow to the milk from a robustly healthy cow which has been grazing on great land and which is descended from robustly healthy cows which grazed on great land and you'll see another huge difference, of course probably more in micronutrient content (including enzymes, hormones, etc.) than macronutrient ratios. >What I see you >advocating, reversed, is raising her calves on a mixture of human milk >and other substances because the humans have been eating better for >THEIR species for more generations. If this is the sort of rhetoric you're going to deploy, I'm not going to bother continuing our discussion. For reductio ad absurdum arguments to be legitimate, they can't distort the argument being discussed. >One whole percent will not turn thin, watery milk into thick, rich >milk. Sorry if I gave the impression that the 1% figure was relative. It's absolute. And changing from 3.5% to 4.5% or 4.7-4.8% fat will actually make a very big difference. >There is more variation in fat content between the milk of >individuals in the same species than that improvement. Of course -- Jersey cows produce much better milk than Holsteins. >but you still seem to be assuming that >more fat is better... For humans, yes, I'm very skeptical of any notion that low-fat is the way to go for infants, partly because it's disastrous for children and adults. It makes no sense to assume that infants would be magically different. But it's not just a matter of realizing that low-fat diets for children and adults are horribly damaging. We know that fat and its related micronutrients, like cholesterol, are necessary in large quantities for the proper development of the fetus and infant, particularly of the child's brain. Unfortunately, I don't think Price measured the fat content of the milks of the modernized and traditional people he studied, so I don't think we have an absolutely definitive answer to this question, but the available evidence is very strongly suggestive. So yes, I absolutely am assuming that more fat is better, and for good reason! >You did, describing its appearance as thin and watery, right? Or was >that someone else? And saying this was bad? No, my friend described the TASTE as thin and watery, like low-fat or non-fat milk. He drank it directly from the breast. I've heard many similar testimonials. Perhaps some people have expressed milk into a bottle or cup or glass and then tasted it after looking at it (well, I'm sure many people have done so) but that's not what I was referring to. >Yes, Equidae are herbivores. So are reindeer and other deer. Peruse >that chart a little more thoroughly and you will see that reindeer >milk averages a whopping 22% fat content, with " deer " at 19%. Fair point -- I should've discussed climate as well as diet. Animals adapted to cold consume more fat. >Thus it is no surprise >then that seal milk is over 50% fat and is the richest milk of all >species listed, not because seals eat a lot of fat but because seals >are known to leave their pups for days at a time. You're ignoring the fact that seals are aquatic animals. >Infant nursing animals need a certain >amount of fat to grow on per day, and those that get it all in one or >three feedings (or even less than that) get a lot more per feeding >than those who get it in 20 or more feedings, such as humans and our >kin, the great apes. Infant nursing animals which nurse once a day also consume a lot more milk at a time than infant nursing animals which nurse twenty times a day. There's no obvious reason that frequency should affect composition in the manner you suggest. Actually, if the relevant factor is total nutrition split over X number of nursings per day, with X varying by species, why wouldn't all macronutrients and micronutrients be affected alike -- IOW each nursing simply delivering that species' daily total nutrition divided by X? I don't have information on the nursing frequency of all these species, but I sorted the table by the fat content of milk, and some very interesting correlations appeared. Seal, gray 53.2 Whale 34.8 Bear, polar 31 Reindeer 22.5 Deer 19.7 Elephant 15.1 Rat 14.8 Dolphin 14.1 Rabbit 12.2 Cat 10.9 Buffalo, Philippine 10.4 Dog 8.3 Pig 8.2 Mink 8 Opossum 6.1 Cow: Jersey 5.5 Sheep 5.3 Cow: Guernsey 5.0 Camel 4.9 Cow: Zebu 4.9 Human 4.5 Cow: Ayrshire 4.1 Cow: Brown Swiss 4.0 Guinea Pig 3.9 Monkey 3.9 Cow: Holstein 3.5 Goat 3.5 Kangaroo 2.1 Bison 1.7 Antelope 1.3 Horse 1.6 Ass (donkey) 1.2 The top five fattiest milks all come from either aquatic species or cold-adapted land species, though elephants, at #6, are certainly an interesting exception. And the bottom five are all grazing animals, four of which exclusively reside in warm climates AFAIK. However, the whole list is extremely problematic for several reasons. First, as we know from cows, milk composition can vary widely by breed within a species, and yet cows are the only species broken down by breed (though the list of cow breeds is very incomplete). Second, milk composition can vary much more widely by species within a family or genus, and yet only one figure is listed for many groups of species, such as monkeys and elephants, not to mention bison. Third, we know nothing about the health or feeds of the tested animals, and as non-ruminants don't have gut bacteria which saturate fatty acids without much regard for diet, the fat content (and breakdown) of the milk of other species probably is much more variable than that of individual breeds of cows -- and even so, as I've pointed out, individual cow breeds can produce significantly variable milk depending on diet. >Just as blood cholesterol does not change much with diet, >milk fat does not change much either (the 1% figure aside) because >milk-fat of all species is synthesized in the breasts from base >components. Uh, where do you think those base components come from if not diet? And perhaps you don't understand that while the human body can synthesize cholesterol in abundance, its ability to produce saturated fat is much more dependent on diet. Dietary carbs can be turned into saturated fat and dietary saturated fat can be of course be used for a variety of purposes, but by and large that's it. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2005 Report Share Posted August 26, 2005 I don't know if you all understand the composition of breastmilk. I know nothing about cows but breastmilk initially is very watery/thin. That is the foremilk. Most of the fat content is found in the hindmilk which comes later in a feeding. This is why babies that are lazy nursers or do not empty a breast sometimes has weight issues. Mother's are advised to only feed one side at each feeding because of this. So if you just pump off or express the foremilk the fat content would be very different if you pump a breast until virtually empty and look at the fat content of the entire feed. My milk when expressed and then allowed to sit...ends up being about 50% of it cream (fat) on top. Re: Digest Number 3869 , > >No, my friend described the TASTE as thin and watery, like low-fat or >non-fat milk. He drank it directly from the breast. I've heard many >similar testimonials. Perhaps some people have expressed milk into a >bottle or cup or glass and then tasted it after looking at it (well, I'm >sure many people have done so) but that's not what I was referring to. > Just a thought about this: drinking warm milk straight from the teat is uncommon. Perhaps a better taste comparison would be sucking both animals rather than comparing ice cold milk with warm sucked out milk. And it could relate to opacity in the other thread: cold fats are more opaque than body temp fats, especially because of saturated content. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2005 Report Share Posted August 26, 2005 , > >No, my friend described the TASTE as thin and watery, like low-fat or >non-fat milk. He drank it directly from the breast. I've heard many >similar testimonials. Perhaps some people have expressed milk into a >bottle or cup or glass and then tasted it after looking at it (well, I'm >sure many people have done so) but that's not what I was referring to. > Just a thought about this: drinking warm milk straight from the teat is uncommon. Perhaps a better taste comparison would be sucking both animals rather than comparing ice cold milk with warm sucked out milk. And it could relate to opacity in the other thread: cold fats are more opaque than body temp fats, especially because of saturated content. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2005 Report Share Posted August 26, 2005 Deanna- >Just a thought about this: drinking warm milk straight from the teat is >uncommon. Perhaps a better taste comparison would be sucking both >animals rather than comparing ice cold milk with warm sucked out milk. Maybe, but I've never heard from anyone who advocates drinking milk as fresh as possible, still warm from the cow, within a couple hours of milking, etc., that such milk tastes thinner or more watery than refrigerated milk. >And it could relate to opacity in the other thread: cold fats are more >opaque than body temp fats, especially because of saturated content. Opacity has nothing to do with the statement I made which started this discussion. Nothing whatsoever. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Nichts. Rien. Niente. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2005 Report Share Posted September 6, 2005 > > " " Maybe, but I've never heard from anyone who advocates drinking milk as > fresh as possible, still warm from the cow, within a couple hours of > milking, etc., " " < < I know I'm a little late on this, I've been offline for a little while, but I have the book by Bernard Jensen " Food Healing for Man " , I think that's the name of it, well anyways, he advocates drinking raw goats milk as soon as it is milked from the goat, still warm. He talks about it being a VERY powerful healer. It convinced me enough that I will, soon, be getting me a couple of goats so I can do just this! I'll try to look up what he wrote if anyone is interested.... And....what has happened to this group? Heidi is GONE???What the *% & # is THAT about....I thought she was our best one....I've learned SO much from her....and I had more ?'s that I was gonna ask her eventually....we are all on the same team aren't we? I've enjoyed 's posts also, sorry to see him leave! -- -- Steve (has anyone here ever read that book by Dr. Jensen?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 phine, you'll need to give us a bit more help on what you mean. What software are you using, and on which platform? There is the FREX16 program for PCs, and there is a similar MAC software available from one of the universities. These are both mentioned under " Frequency Generators " on my website.. If you have a newer MAC, you can generally run most PC software with the PC emulator program.. Hope this helps, Dave Felt DFE Research http://www.de.net wrote: > ________________________________________________________________________ > 1a. Re: Rife machine software > Posted by: " phine Nujoma " jnujoma@... > Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:48 am ((PST)) > > Is converting Rife Machine softwares to one's PC possible? > > Thanking you. > > phine > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 Hi Dave, From Weston, I gathered that one shd have a good quality sound card and compatible windows software and speakers + a 200 watt slavve amp. Apparently Bztronics can do a software that emulates a Rife machine. You may contact at wezzie1954@... for more info. Many thanks' phine Re: [ ] Digest Number 3869 phine, you'll need to give us a bit more help on what you mean. What software are you using, and on which platform? There is the FREX16 program for PCs, and there is a similar MAC software available from one of the universities. These are both mentioned under " Frequency Generators " on my website.. If you have a newer MAC, you can generally run most PC software with the PC emulator program.. Hope this helps, Dave Felt DFE Research http://www.de.net wrote: > __________________________________________________________ > 1a. Re: Rife machine software > Posted by: " phine Nujoma " jnujoma@... > Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:48 am ((PST)) > > Is converting Rife Machine softwares to one's PC possible? > > Thanking you. > > phine > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1577 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 6:55 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 Do you develop those software nd programmes. I tried to surf your website, but I cannot get to the Frequency Generator domain. phine Re: [ ] Digest Number 3869 phine, you'll need to give us a bit more help on what you mean. What software are you using, and on which platform? There is the FREX16 program for PCs, and there is a similar MAC software available from one of the universities. These are both mentioned under " Frequency Generators " on my website.. If you have a newer MAC, you can generally run most PC software with the PC emulator program.. Hope this helps, Dave Felt DFE Research http://www.de.net wrote: > __________________________________________________________ > 1a. Re: Rife machine software > Posted by: " phine Nujoma " jnujoma@... > Date: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:48 am ((PST)) > > Is converting Rife Machine softwares to one's PC possible? > > Thanking you. > > phine > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1577 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 6:55 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.