I'd like to state that milk DOES have chemicals in it, just typically not added ones.

I'm going to lose my mind

Can't fix stupid, I guess. These are the same people that would fall for the "there's chemicals in water, called DHMO!" meme.

They swear its not pasteurization though, that’s something different and bad.

That French, Yurrupeen socialism.

Dying by the shits is the way God intended.

TIL there is a raw milk community? Da fuq

It's nice that heating milk kills bacteria and viruses; but doing it too much can damage taste and nutrition. That's why I've been experimenting with ways to minimize the temperature and time needed to sanitize milk without otherwise damaging it. The deep state will never get me to drink pasturized milk!

Yeah, the problem is these people bond over being ignorant pieces of shit.

It gets to the point where everyone is supposed to know the "meta" information and anyone who tries to be serious about something is ridiculed.

Google find me a website about why pasteurization is bad.

ChatGPT explain why raw milk is good and pasteurized milk is bad.

Imo these people are often being served what they want. The easiest things to do may be a series of truth in advertising related laws:

A) make chatbot companies liable for anything a chatbot tells a user (regardless of disclaimers),

B) a law that encodes similar levels of editorial process for large websites and social media power users as wikipedia: citations needed for any claim. (Note such a law would probably kill the right wing media overnight, if enforced)

C) affiliation disclosure requirements. For both social media users and websites. Farmers selling raw milk shouldn't also be hosting misinfo sites on pasteurization.

And finally: D) media algorithm transparency

Rugged individualism is a cancer that prevents us from enacting change on systems.

Good point. Sadly it's too easy to spread misinformation and remain unchecked.

I'm all for going after people who purposely spread misinformation. But I don't think this is solely on them. It's to easy to just blame them and absolve the individual of any responsibility of critical thought. It's not like information about pasteurized milk and the benefits isn't readily available. But they choose to ignore it, so that's on them too.

The baby hadn't been born yet. The would-be mother drank unpasteurized "raw" milk.

That's not a case of being poor or poorly resourced. It's a lot harder to source unpasteurized milk than it is to find milk that is safe to drink. You have to really go out of your way to buy that!

This is survival of the poorly educated, poorly resourced, poorly connected communities.

Or this is the "find out" moment for a MAGA housewife who spent the last year cheering on RFK Junior and yellilng about the "woke agenda" of pasteurization.

The point is, we don't know. But since RAW milk is both more expensive AND more inconvenient to obtain, I'm going to go with my theory over a poor mother.

Actually it's not a failure of the poorest of societies. Most the people that are these raw milk drinkers are usually people that are middle class to well off. The poorer end of the spectrum normally just purchase whatever regular milk is in the store cuz that's usually what WIC or mom and baby or whatever else is paying for.

Survival of the fittest doesn't only or even usually apply to a single individual. It only applies to populations and only over a long period of time. Plus the whole thing has been debunked anyways, evolutionary pressure only works till meh good enough levels, not beyond that. It's just a bad saying all round.