Do you want to tighten this up a little bit? Cause as written it sounds like nonsense. E.g. contaminated raw milk is obviously bad for you. But otherwise?
Yep, I survived drinking a lot of a raw milk in a European country where it is legal. Curiously, the people there were skinny and healthy and didnt seem to be affected by its noxious properties either.
I find it very hard to take this kind of comment in good faith. You know as well as I do what RFK says, and why saying that it won't instantly kill you, while obviously true, only benefits misinformation.
But ok, fine. Raw milk is not better for you than pasteurized. It does not have magic healing properties. And it has a much higher risk of introducing pathogens into an industrialized food supply.
But see, this is the problem. Raw = natural = good takes only a word or two. And if challenged, the crank can fall back on the motte-and-bailey argument of "what do you mean, of course milk is good for you!" But if you're not aligned with the lunatic fringe, any incomplete or even fractionally incorrect answer is a gotcha. Debunking nonsense is exponentially harder than spewing it to begin with, and then concern-trolling about "oh, only if it's contaminated!" makes the situation worse, not better.
No. People do this thing where they become convinced that so and so is a villain, so any negative thing you say about them is fine, no matter how loose, sloppy, or just plain incorrect.
You need to be a better adversary if you want to have a positive impact. Otherwise you're just contributing to the noise. And then people see all the incorrect criticisms of him, and it makes them less likely to believe actually legit criticisms.
I suppose the only thing I can tell you before flagging you is that you might not want to go with the first thing you find if you want to find the truth.
