Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 hello brad, you raise an excellent point. i've often been in qualms about this one myself but constantly only found conflicting info on it. sure would be nice if we could sort this out finally. and likewise for the rest of the organs. the kidneys, the brain, the lungs, etc.... thanks for bringing it up, angel From: " belscb " <belscb@...> The most recent issue of Wise Traditions includes an article entitled, " The Liver Files. " In this article, the author (Lynn Razaitis) makes the following statement: << " One of the roles of the liver is to neutralize toxins (such as drugs, chemical agents and poisons); but the liver does not store toxins. Poisonous compounds that the body cannot neutralize and eliminate are likely to lodge in the fatty tissues and the nervous system. The liver is not a storage organ for toxins... " >> Is this claim true? I've always read that the liver filters toxins, and therefore a good amount of toxins always remains in the liver. In one sense, I've imagined the liver as a water filter, picking up all the bad stuff, and occasionally needing a cleansing. After all.... if the liver doesn't store toxins, then why do people try to " detoxify " their livers? In the same article a few paragraphs down, the author makes a few more statements: << " If supermarket liver is your only option, the best choice is calves liver, as in the U.S. beef cattle do spend their first few months on pasture. Beef liver is more problematic as beef cattle are finished on feedlots. Livers from conventionally raised chicken and hogs are not recommended. " >> If the liver does not store toxins, then why is beef liver " problematic " ? What could possibly be wrong with feedlot-beef liver (assuming the author is correct, and it doesn't contain a significant amount of toxins)? I think I remember reading that *half* of the livers in commercially fed cows are diseased and unfit to eat, and are therefore thrown away. I always assumed this was due to toxins stored in the liver. Have I been mistaken? Another thing: why is conventional pork/chicken liver " not recommended " ? Obviously livers from factory-raised animals would be much lower in nutrients, but is that enough to make them " problematic " and " not recommended " ? What's the big deal? Slightly confused, Brad Belschner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 Hello all. I recently had the opportunity to speak with Sally Fallon about raw milk and liver (not organic) for my husband who suffers from Hep. C. She said that store bought liver was better than no liver and that he should eat it once a week. I am under the impression that the liver filters out the bad stuff and releases it as bile. I know that many people have been helped by raw liver and liver extract. While we are trying to incorporate it into diet, it sure is hard to purchase knowing all I know about beef now. I trust SF and am making us all eat it as often as possible I just soak it as suggested in the book. In good health, Roni > hello brad, > > you raise an excellent point. i've often been in qualms about this one myself but constantly only found conflicting info on it. > > sure would be nice if we could sort this out finally. > > and likewise for the rest of the organs. the kidneys, the brain, the lungs, etc.... > > thanks for bringing it up, > angel > > From: " belscb " <belscb@y...> > > The most recent issue of Wise Traditions includes an article > entitled, " The Liver Files. " In this article, the author (Lynn > Razaitis) makes the following statement: > > << " One of the roles of the liver is to neutralize toxins (such as > drugs, chemical agents and poisons); but the liver does not store > toxins. Poisonous compounds that the body cannot neutralize and > eliminate are likely to lodge in the fatty tissues and the nervous > system. The liver is not a storage organ for toxins... " >> > > Is this claim true? I've always read that the liver filters toxins, > and therefore a good amount of toxins always remains in the liver. In > one sense, I've imagined the liver as a water filter, picking up all > the bad stuff, and occasionally needing a cleansing. After all.... if > the liver doesn't store toxins, then why do people try to " detoxify " > their livers? > > In the same article a few paragraphs down, the author makes a few > more statements: > > << " If supermarket liver is your only option, the best choice is > calves liver, as in the U.S. beef cattle do spend their first few > months on pasture. Beef liver is more problematic as beef cattle are > finished on feedlots. Livers from conventionally raised chicken and > hogs are not recommended. " >> > > If the liver does not store toxins, then why is beef > liver " problematic " ? What could possibly be wrong with feedlot-beef > liver (assuming the author is correct, and it doesn't contain a > significant amount of toxins)? I think I remember reading that *half* > of the livers in commercially fed cows are diseased and unfit to eat, > and are therefore thrown away. I always assumed this was due to > toxins stored in the liver. Have I been mistaken? > > Another thing: why is conventional pork/chicken liver " not > recommended " ? Obviously livers from factory-raised animals would be > much lower in nutrients, but is that enough to make > them " problematic " and " not recommended " ? What's the big deal? > > Slightly confused, > > Brad Belschner > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 belscb wrote: > > > Another thing: why is conventional pork/chicken liver " not > recommended " ? Obviously livers from factory-raised animals would be > much lower in nutrients, but is that enough to make > them " problematic " and " not recommended " ? I wondered the same thing, as the NT cookbook doesn't recommend pork meat either (neither conventional nor NT raised), and didn't give much of a reason. What's the beef with pork? : -) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 What's the beef with pork? : -) > > , you have to read what jordan rubin has to say in the Makers Diet...very interesting but i don't remember all what he had to say. maybe someone else does. laura in nj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 & , I am reading the Maker's Diet now. It's very interesting. The Maker's Diet explained that pork is unclean (as directed by God), that pigs are scavengers as are shellfish and other unclean animals. The Jewish people do not eat these foods. > What's the beef with pork? : -) >> >> > > , you have to read what jordan rubin has to say in the Makers > Diet...very interesting but i don't remember all what he had to say. > > maybe someone else does. > > laura in nj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 > & , > > I am reading the Maker's Diet now. It's very interesting. > > The Maker's Diet explained that pork is unclean (as directed by God), that > pigs are scavengers as are shellfish and other unclean animals. The Jewish > people do not eat these foods. > > > , what struck me about what he said, was that cultures who eat only 'clean' animals (eg the Jews) are healthier than cultures who eat everything and anything, such as the asians. he said that a lot of diseases come out of asia: the flus, including avian flu, plus SARS and others. he believes this is a result of eating animals indiscriminately; and that these diseases come from eating 'unclean' animals. whether or not it is true i think it's very interesting. laura in nj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 I thought these diseases had more to do with poor sanitation methods or no methods!! jafa --- > > > > , what struck me about what he said, was that > cultures who eat > only 'clean' animals (eg the Jews) are healthier > than cultures who > eat everything and anything, such as the asians. > > he said that a lot of diseases come out of asia: > the flus, including > avian flu, plus SARS and others. he believes this > is a result of > eating animals indiscriminately; and that these > diseases come from > eating 'unclean' animals. > > whether or not it is true i think it's very > interesting. > > laura in nj > > > > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 >, what struck me about what he said, was that cultures who eat >only 'clean' animals (eg the Jews) are healthier than cultures who >eat everything and anything, such as the asians. It is also true that pigs carry a lot of diseases that are transmissible to humans, which is how the flu has been passing from avian populations to humans. Pork is the animal most like humans that we eat: which is a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you look at it! Pork fat is maybe the easiest to assimilate: a lot of folks swear by it. The other problem with pork is that they way they were traditionally kept (wandering freely) they tended to eat a lot of really nasty stuff, like the sewage flowing in the streets, dead cats, rats. So whether you *ate* the pigs or not, just having them around would help viruses and parasites spread. Wandering pigs would sometimes kill children too. Ditto for shellfish. There are lots of good nutrients in them, but they tend to store viruses and bacteria (such as the " red " in red tide). In places where the sewage goes into the water (much of the world, historically), shellfish are a big vector for parasites and viruses, such as hepatitis and cholera. Anyway, I eat both, tho I do cook them ... ! Giving up bacon and pork ribs would be hard. Idealogically I like herbavores better for food though. Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 > I thought these diseases had more to do with poor > sanitation methods or no methods!! > > jafa Hi Jafa, perhaps you are right, but it is a fact that a lot of these diseases come from animals (avian flu, SARS) and i believe it is commonly accepted that theses diseases somehow jump from animals to people. i don't think sanitation or the lack thereof is the cause, just like you can catch diseases from humans where sanitation is not the issue. laura in nj 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.