Wrong. by kpo

I think it is a good idea, to get people to start seeing breastmilk as normal and beautiful and delicious.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 25, 2011 5:46 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I think it is a good idea, to get people to start seeing breastmilk as normal and beautiful and delicious.

We can't have that happen...what would the babies eat? Their is only enough breastmilk for babies....think about the children.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 25, 2011 5:49 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I think it is a good idea, to get people to start seeing breastmilk as normal and beautiful and delicious.

Yeah, for babies.

First, people milk, what next? People?

I guess , if there was some actual NEED to market this... but there isn't.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 25, 2011 6:15 AM

HARDWARE

Baby Gaga; IT'S MADE FROM PEOPLE!!!
{/charltonheston}

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 25, 2011 7:11 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Well, it's certainly not my place to tell a woman how to use their body (they get a mite irritable over those things) I can't help but draw parallels to dairy farms, where the cows are kept pregnant as often as possible to produce more milk and many of the baby calf's become veil. A modest proposal comes to mind...

Wait... what am I saying? I've been in rwed too long, the tin foil hats are gettin' to me

Boobies get larger and the more they are used the larger they will be right? Milk away, just don't have any veil babies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 25, 2011 7:38 AM

The main problem here is that, unlike a cow, the milk is coming from a sentient person. Nipples are sometimes erogenous zones. And only unweaned infants don't see sucking on someone's gazongas as sexual, unless you're Freud, in which case EVERY damn thing is sexual from freakin' birth.

So it's a sex act with an anonymous partner, and you never even see that partner, but you consume their body fluid anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 25, 2011 8:03 AM

First, triumphant step towards delicious human meats being sold legally at UK markets.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 25, 2011 8:47 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh Yuck!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 25, 2011 9:05 AM

Tastes like pork!

Not that I'd know anything about that. <_< >_>

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 25, 2011 9:28 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

A new, cottage milk industry?

Meeting the demand - Lactation without pregnancy, induced lactation, relactation:
Milk production can be obtained "artificially" and intentionally in the absence of pregnancy in the woman. It is not necessary that the woman has been pregnant, and she can even be well into her post-menopausal period. Women who have never been pregnant are sometimes able to induce enough lactation to breastfeed. This is called "induced lactation". Women who have breastfed before can sometimes re-start. This is called "relactation". This is how some adoptive mothers, usually beginning with a supplemental nursing system or some other form of supplementation, can breastfeed. There is thought to be little or no difference in milk composition whether lactation is artificially induced or a result of pregnancy.
Lactation can be induced by physical stimulation and by drugs. In principle—with considerable patience and perseverance—it is possible to induce lactation by sucking on the nipples alone. The nipples may need to be consistently stimulated by a breast pump or actual suckling (several times a day), and the breasts massaged and squeezed ("milked") to encourage the flow of milk. Temporary use of galactagogue (milk-inducing) drugs is also effective; galactagogue herbs may also be of use. Once established, lactation responds to demand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactation

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 25, 2011 9:33 AM

I imagine lobotomized and naked women standing in tiny stalls on top of straws, hooked up to machines.

Every now and then, a man with a gun walks around, and shoots the ones that have become too diseased to produce milk any longer. The bodies are sold and ground up for protein filler.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 25, 2011 10:48 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I imagine lobotomized and naked women standing in tiny stalls on top of straws, hooked up to machines.

Every now and then, a man with a gun walks around, and shoots the ones that have become too diseased to produce milk any longer. The bodies are sold and ground up for protein filler.

I saw somewhat cheerier Dickensian/David Lynch imagery involving eraserhead baby triplets and very poor women... but only marginally cheerier because no one was turned into hamburger.
I don't think we should do this human breast milk thing.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:00 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I tend to agree with AURaptor that breast milk is natural and delicious for babies, but probably not for grownups so much. As an aside, my best friend tried some breast milk that her other best friend had refrigerated for her baby, Jennifer said it didn't have much taste to it. On the other hand my good friend who lives next door tried her own breast milk and said it wasquite sweet.

On the side, I've always had this weird idea about a special milk store where you can try all different kinds of milk, horse milk like in Mongolia, whale milk, elephant milk, platapus milk ... you name it, they'll have it at the Milkins Store. But I don't think they ought to have human milk ... I guess ... maybe it wouldn't be so horrible ... then again I think I'll pass.

Byte, that is scary, I don't like that idea, you and me will have to stop it from happening.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 2:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And only unweaned infants don't see sucking on someone's gazongas as sexual,

What???! I don't. I can see it as sexual if presented on a Playboy bunny. But when I see a mom pull out her boobs on the street to feed her baby, it is NOT sexual. It is a feeding machine.

That's exactly the kind of attitude that leads to people frowning on breastfeeding in public. You do realize this attitude is an artifact of Western culture, right? Most people on the planet do not see boobs this way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 3:55 AM

DREAMTROVE

Byte has something leading towards a point here, not about sex, but about milk factories. It's not a huge step before third world women are milked. It would fit in with the eugenics plan also, taking them out of the natural world, placing an economic value on breast milk, and then making it sothey couldn't afford *not* to sell their breast milk to wealthy Europeans.

Mince,

Your feeding PN's fantasy stereotype.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 4:33 AM

That's why I said except infants, didn't I?

But adults drinking human breast milk is something else entirely. Sorry, but it's true.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Mince,

Your feeding PN's fantasy stereotype.

It can't be helped. My programming, which is defective, demands that I conform my conduct to the worst fears and lowest expectations of any observer. Hence, when PN is about, I crave the blood and flesh of goy (and their cash monies).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 28, 2011 10:19 AM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I slightly disagree with you Byte, I agree with Cantt that breast feeding babies in public is fine, though I don't think thats what you meant.

As for my friends who have tried it: Lise tried a little of her own and Jennifer tried a little of Ashley's that Ashley had put in the fridge, so no one took it straight from the breast, so I don't think what my friends did was sexual.

But yeah, that third world breast milking idea is scary.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 4:07 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

A happy update: Breast milk ice cream confiscated: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12615353

There is concern over the possibility that the animals could've been diseased... Regulation has caught up with this new idustry fast

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 7:09 PM

it really was a silly idea. some restaurants will go to any lengths to be seen to be outrageous or different.

if you want to donate breast milk, donate to a bank that stores it for BABIES, for whom it is meant, not posh diners seeking culinary extremes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 7:15 PM

TRAVELER

Reminds me of a joke I heard along time ago. I save it for special occasions.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 3:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
That's why I said except infants, didn't I?

Actually, what you said was:

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And ONLY unweaned infants don't see sucking on someone's gazongas as sexual,

Which means everyone else (who isn't an unweaned infant, or breastfeeding infant) sees gazongas as sexual.

I am NOT an unweaned infant, and I don't see gazongas as sexual unless they are presented in a sexual context.

Gazongas feeding a baby. NOT sexual.
Gazongas in lingerie in the bedroom. Sexual.

See? Sexuality of gazongas depends on situational context. Not on the breastfeeding status and age of the person.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 4:38 AM

KANEMAN

"But when I see a mom pull out her boobs on the street to feed her baby"

What street is that again?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Which means everyone else (who isn't an unweaned infant, or breastfeeding infant) sees gazongas as sexual.

I am NOT an unweaned infant, and I don't see gazongas as sexual unless they are presented in a sexual context.

Gazongas feeding a baby. NOT sexual.
Gazongas in lingerie in the bedroom. Sexual.

See? Sexuality of gazongas depends on situational context. Not on the breastfeeding status and age of the person.

Erg. You're taking this out of context and misapprehending me. And ignoring that I specified that "unless you're an unweaned infant, SUCKING on a breast is sexual." SUCKING.

Breastfeeding babies: fine.

Breastfeeding adults: keep it in the bedroom.

Women walk around baring their breasts in other cultures, yes. But even in those cultures fondling breasts without permission is considered molestation. Adults SUCKING on those breasts? It's sexual. Drinking the breast milk, as an adult? It's sexual. The nipples are erectile tissue and an erogenous zone on both genders. It might not be lewd to bare 'em, but it's lewd for consenting (or non-consenting) adults to fondle, bite, or suckle them in public. I really don't see this milk bar/ ice cream store thing as that far removed an issue.

It's also pretty gross if you think about it to drink anything from another human. Infants got an excuse, for those first few months, their systems can only process that milk. But once you're weaned, WHY would you WANT to? You can transmit DISEASES sharing or drinking body fluids from an unidentified partner. Head off to the sanguinarian bar, hey, I'll have a menstrual special. Maybe some blood pudding. It boggles my mind people think this is a good idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I specified that "unless you're an unweaned infant, SUCKING on a breast is sexual." SUCKING.

Oh I see. I misapprehended you because you didn't say it that way at first.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And ONLY unweaned infants don't see sucking on someone's gazongas as sexual,

Subject: infants
Verb: see
Object: sucking

Originally, you are talking about ONLY breastfeeding infants don't SEE sucking breasts as sexual. So it implies that everyone else SEES sucking breasts as sexual, NO MATTER WHO IS DOING THE SUCKING.

Only NOW are you specifying that you meant when breastfeeding infants are doing the sucking, it is not sexual. For everyone else who sucks, it is sexual. You've changed the verb to "suck" instead of "see."

Now it is clearer.

Back to the topic at hand, drinking breastmilk that was pumped or squeezed is not the same as sucking. I suppose I can see how someone might have a conditioned sexual response that human breastmilk = sucking. But I believe most of us can see milk independently from the sexual act of sucking.

ETA: Diseases are a separate issue from the sexualization of breastmilk.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 7:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
What street is that again?

Come on down to Peru. People do it here all the time.

They don't just discreetly expose just enough boob to feed their child. They pull that gazonga out all the way.

Breasts are not taboo here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 9:14 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

CTTS: Yes, that probably goes back to our good old Puritanical heritage. As I've said before, anything TITILATING is really cool over here, but actual NUDITY is "offensive". Bah.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 9:36 AM

In defense of puritanical inhibitions, the human body is a revolting thing. Reviling it is part of our cultural heritage, which I refuse to adjust to accomodate the barely sublimated exhibitionism of breast feeding mothers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
That's why I said except infants, didn't I?

Actually, what you said was:

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And ONLY unweaned infants don't see sucking on someone's gazongas as sexual,

Which means everyone else (who isn't an unweaned infant, or breastfeeding infant) sees gazongas as sexual.

I am NOT an unweaned infant, and I don't see gazongas as sexual unless they are presented in a sexual context.

Gazongas feeding a baby. NOT sexual.
Gazongas in lingerie in the bedroom. Sexual.

See? Sexuality of gazongas depends on situational context. Not on the breastfeeding status and age of the person.

I'm with you all the way on this issue, CTS, except that i don't see the restaurant as promoting human milk as being lovely and natural, it's seems to be just an attention seeking ploy on their behalf. I'm all for breast milk for infants, and for boobs out for feeding whenever the baby needs it. It sickens and upsets me that breastfeeding is still somewhat shameful and some women still feel the need to be discreet because boobs are seen as primarily sexual in this society. I think it makes breastfeeding a less attractive option for a lot of women, instead of the easier option it is. No bottles to clean or warm or store, nothing to lug around from place to place.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 11:09 AM

...Okay. If I'm going to be propped up as the anti-boob person in this thread, the next person who comes in here and quotes me out of context gets 'em lopped off.

I deem this a fair and reasonable course of action.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 12:51 PM

I hereby present myself as the anti-boob, anti-motherhood, anti-baby, anti-whatever person of this and any other thread.

Please ponder the following picture and ask yourself what makes boobs sexual. Also, think of feeding, and milk and so forth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 1:07 PM

A demigod of the Trichobezoar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 3:18 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Okay, my milkins store won't sell breast milk because Byte is right about the disease thing. Actually I was never including human breast milk in the selection at Milk Store, I thought of it briefly and then said "Would I try it?" and the answer is no. But would I try a friend's milk from the refridgerator? Maybe.

I agree that having it at a resturant is too far. I also agree that breast feeding babies in public is totally normal and natural and shouldn't be a big issue. I personally don't understand why women choose not to breast feed babies, unless there is a viable medical reason not to.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 4:33 PM

I was never breastfeed, my brother was. That alone should tell you everything about the positives of breastfeeding. If you don't give your kids natural nutrition growing up, they grow up anxious, depressed, and paranoid.

Of course, I wasn't breastfed because my mom was ahead of the curve, I was born about the time she started showing first signs of her (many) brain tumours. They had to operate soon after I was born, and give her a blood tranfusion, and she was concerned about AIDs, and figured out AIDs could potentially be transmitted through breastmilk before anyone else did.

Side note: yes, because of the brain tumours, they also did a hysterectomy. Yet another victim of globalist "no one has good enough genes to reproduce so let's sterilize them" policy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:52 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Oh Byte, I don't think her not breast feeding you had anything to do with those things, it sounds like your mother was being cautious and it makes sense for her to not have breast fed you given her circumstances. I'm not saying breast feeding is the be-all and end all of healthy children, I'm just saying its good to do it if one can, but if one can't I don't think it will really harm the child.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 6:18 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Side note: yes, because of the brain tumours, they also did a hysterectomy. Yet another victim of globalist "no one has good enough genes to reproduce so let's sterilize them" policy.

That makes sense. The doctors were just telling us about, well, not this of course, but about causes. They said:

"It used to be thought that brain tumors were genetic, but that theory is now largely discredited. Whether some populations are more susceptible or not is debatable, but natural rates for all populations are exceedingly low. If the rate is topping, say, 3-4 per 100,000 then something else is involved, a virus, like maybe SV-40, chemical contamination, radiation, or a combination of these factors."

I didn't think about it, but yes, if they used to think that it was genetic, they would start sterilizing. God, they're probably doing that now with ODD.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 7:38 PM

Ours is probably one of the rare ones that IS genetic, though. We have a decent family history on that side, and a lot of the women were prone to brain tumours, even as far back as the 1860s, and a great grandma had one, and my cousin had an odd tumour, and my uncle has all sorts of spinal tumours.

I mean, sure, the previous generation and this generation may have been exposed to something that makes them even more frequent, but we always had a high risk factor.

Though there are still plenty of doctors thinking it's genetic around here, which may have an influence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2011 10:54 AM

Here's is an interesting analysis of the disgust for human breast milk.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41907190/ns/health-health_care/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2011 11:16 AM

DREAMTROVE

Byte,

Yes, it could also be that your family has been living in a location that has some natural radioactivity, or could be passing on a virus from one generation to the next, etc. The general feeling among these doctors was that there were a number of genetic anti-tumor factors, and if you were missing one or two, you would be more susceptible to cancer but that it wouldn't strictly speaking cause the disease.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2011 2:26 PM

"We all have an innate disgust for bodily secretions hardwired into our brains."

Wow, stop the presses. Also, your brain is hardwired to perceive putting your hand on an oven burner as pain.

"The risk of contracting a disease from a cow or goat seems higher than the risk of contracting a disease from a human, but for some reason people don't perceive it that way."

I can't figure out if this sentence is saying contracting a disease from a cow or goat is more likely or contracting from a human is more likely. Both are viable contagion pathways, does it matter? Both are dangerous or susceptible to dangerous contamination. I can think of dozens examples for human-to-human contagion, and animal-to-human contagion. The current epidemics I can think of that are most serious (highest death count) are human-to-human. Previously, humans got small pox from horses and cattle.

It's a viable complaint and concern either way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2011 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...Okay. If I'm going to be propped up as the anti-boob person in this thread, the next person who comes in here and quotes me out of context gets 'em lopped off.

I deem this a fair and reasonable course of action.

Was this aimed at my response? I wasn't suggesting you were. I certainly don't see your responses as being so. I was simply agreeing with CTS's statement re breast feeding and boobs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2011 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I can't figure out if this sentence is saying contracting a disease from a cow or goat is more likely or contracting from a human is more likely. Both are viable contagion pathways, does it matter? Both are dangerous or susceptible to dangerous contamination. I can think of dozens examples for human-to-human contagion, and animal-to-human contagion. The current epidemics I can think of that are most serious (highest death count) are human-to-human. Previously, humans got small pox from horses and cattle.

It's a viable complaint and concern either way.

And why milk from cows and pigs has been pasturised.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2011 3:14 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
"The risk of contracting a disease from a cow or goat seems higher than the risk of contracting a disease from a human, but for some reason people don't perceive it that way."

I can't figure out if this sentence is saying contracting a disease from a cow or goat is more likely or contracting from a human is more likely.

It's saying that contracting a disease from a cow or goat is more likely.
"The risk of contracting a disease from a cow or goat seems higher."
In conditions of overcrowding on dairy farms, this is certainly the case. Any overcrowding promotes the spread of disease.

Quote:
Previously, humans got small pox from horses and cattle.

I just have to nitpick this to say that, by definition, cattle would have given humans cowpox, which was the original vaccine against smallpox.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2011 3:15 PM

Sure, but I don't drink cow's milk OR human milk and I think y'all are weird.

Additional note: Even after pasteurization, milk can become contaminated. Psychologically the concern here is disease spread, there's a good reason why, as the article says, adults have a hardwired response about drinking body fluids.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2011 3:17 PM

'Seems higher' to me does not mean IS higher. The sentence is confusing. I also doubt the veracity of it: name the many diseases that are contracted from cow or goat milk compared to contact with human body fluids. I can name more from humans, and the ones I can name cause more deaths. Syphilis, AIDs, Ebola, Hepatitis for a start.

You have madcow, I grant, and some parasites, and we used to have smallpox. But overwhelmingly contagion nowadays from body fluid is human to human. Even in cases where the diseases jumped species, such as AIDs, the primary mode of infection is still human to human. This is probably true for most species and afflictions.

The only exceptions I can think of to that right now are the bubonic plague, and West Nile Virus. Neither of which involve cows or goats as a vector. Lyme Disease might, but transmission is still no where near the degree of the other diseases I've mentioned.

"I just have to nitpick this to say that, by definition, cattle would have given humans cowpox , which was the original vaccine against smallpox."

Okay. Smallpox still originally jumped species from european hooved animals. It's why Native Americans didn't have any built up resistance to small pox; horses and cattle aren't native here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2011 3:20 PM