There are those little urine test strips you can pick up that let you estimate things like pH levels, though they aren't exactly pinpoint accurate if you're looking for precision. I’d imagine they might even work for saliva, too. You can usually find them sold in packs of 100 at most local pharmacies or maybe even over at the Mayo Clinic. Now, if you head specifically to the Mayo Clinic, they might carry specialized pH test strips designed just for that purpose, which would be a bit more reliable, even if they do come with a higher price tag.
That being said, trying to gauge your body's overall pH just by looking at your urine is a bit like trying to judge the temperature of an entire house by touching one single windowpane; it really won't give you the full picture of what's happening inside your system. To get a truly accurate reading of your internal balance, you'd really need to have some bloodwork done. But it makes me wonder, what is the ultimate goal behind all this monitoring?
Well, we all spent so much time praying for some decent weather, and then this happens...😁
If you can, maybe try stripping off all those synthetic layers and switching over to some pure cotton instead. It might actually help things feel a bit more balanced.
Joseph Watson3 said:I’d honestly bet my bottom dollar that the reason we see this isn't because there are actually more allergens out there, but rather because nobody used to pay any attention to these tiny details, much less run tests against fifty different specific triggers like we do today. Back in the day, life expectancy was significantly lower than what we experience now, and people were routinely passing away from things that are easily treatable in modern medicine, so no one really had the luxury of sitting around philosophizing about milk allergies—people were just grateful to have access to basic nutrition. It feels like a byproduct of having a higher standard of living and a robust healthcare system—sort of like that "prosperity paradox" where 😁
It isn't just about milk allergies, either; I genuinely believe that allergies in general are on the rise. Though, I have to admit, once you start sneezing uncontrollably in February because of hay fever, like I do, it definitely starts to feel like the entire world has suddenly become allergic to everything😁.
vividorca45 said:... because there are substances categorized as additives that are actually just extracts from natural, logical sources, such as chlorophyll or beta-carotene...
That’s precisely the point I’ve been chewing on. If my memory serves me right, by strict definition, those wouldn't even qualify as additives; if they come from a natural source and are technically part of the product itself according to the label, they don't necessarily have to be listed. It reminds me of how certain components can be added to dairy products—if they're derived directly from milk, for instance, there's often no requirement to declare them separately. So, it makes me wonder, is that same logic applied to something as basic as a gallon of milk or a standard tub of yogurt?
Well, here we go again, everyone is mixing up apples and oranges. It’s just not an equal comparison when you consider that a Swedish person and a Japanese person live completely different lives, shaped by totally distinct environments and daily routines—not to mention they are genetically, and even visibly, quite different from one another. If you really wanted to find a controlled variable, you might try comparing Japanese people who drink milk to Japanese people who don't. But even then, it gets complicated because those who skip the dairy likely share a whole cluster of other lifestyle habits that set them apart from the milk drinkers. If things were as straightforward as some of you seem to think, we would have cracked the code on what actually causes allergies ages ago, and with a bit of luck, we might have actually solved the problem by now. Personally, I haven't the slightest clue if milk plays a direct role in triggering allergies, but it does make me wonder: humans have been consuming dairy since the very dawn of animal husbandry, which means we've been doing it for a truly massive stretch of history. So why is it that the sheer number and frequency of allergies seem to be skyrocketing only in recent times? I find myself deeply skeptical that milk is the primary culprit behind this trend.
James Rogers53, you’re the only one drinking Coca-Cola, and even then, it's just occasionally and in moderation. As the saying goes, the dose makes the poison. And regarding my comment about reading the labels, I was addressing an inaccurate statement, so please don't try to twist my words! 🙂
I know there wasn't any malice intended here—believe me, I don't have any either—but you know how they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.😁 BTW, if I didn't think you were actually making some sense, I wouldn't even be bothering to debate this with you. You really should take a look at what it says on that black Diet Coke label...😛
Come on, Joseph Watson3, don't be so cynical. People are constantly being bombarded with a massive flood of information every single day. If you aren't an expert in a specific field, it’s incredibly difficult to sift through it all and figure out what actually makes sense. On the flip side, people get this false sense of control over their own lives—if I can just blame milk for every single thing that goes wrong in the world, then the problem becomes solvable; I'll just stop drinking milk and live a happy, healthy life until the very end, maybe even longer. What really worries me is how everyone seems to claim they know everything, acting so certain and authoritative, when their primary source is some fringe leftist website, if they even have one at all. And here is more "reliable" info that will eventually become someone else's gospel truth.
So, look, our Mystical friend started with a valid point; diet products really do contain artificial sweeteners and who knows what other additives used for flavor balancing and whatnot. It's just that, due to a lack of understanding, he took information that applies to sodas and hot dogs and applied it directly to milk, making these heavy-handed claims with total confidence, despite having no clue how raw milk is actually processed. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, he completely lost any shred of credibility when he rambled on about how a bottle of Diet Coke doesn't have a label, but the starting premise was actually quite convincing. And so, I'm still left wondering if anything should be added to basic milk, while he has undoubtedly gained himself a few devoted followers.
James Rogers53 said:Well, I have to hand it to you all, you’ve finally managed to knock the wind right out of my sails.😢
And they can still sit there and try to claim that this is all just another one of those global conspiracies.😁
Honestly, there’s really no need to worry too much about it because, if you think about it, there’s always a reason to feel a little paranoid—you just have to know where to look for them.😁Honestly, I just can't bring myself to buy into the idea that milk is one of those things that could actually lead to the downfall of humanity, mostly because of a few specific reasons that weigh on my mind. I don't really subscribe to those alarmist theories about massive amounts of antibiotics or hormones being pumped into everything; from what I understand, the regulatory landscape is actually quite robust, and I’d like to think that the testing labs over in Indianapolis are doing their jobs properly to keep things safe. To me, it seems more likely that the massive industrial giants—especially those huge corporations focused heavily on international exports—wouldn't want to gamble their entire reputation on such a high-stakes risk. And then there's that whole complicated narrative regarding cow's milk and its relationship to calves, which adds another layer to the whole discussion. 🤣I mean, if you really think about it, at least one species actually drinks cow's milk, whereas I’m pretty sure not a single animal out there touches soy milk. It makes me wonder what exactly fuels these massive waves of public hysteria where everyone suddenly acts like an expert on everything, when in reality, if you take just a moment to dig a little deeper, most people haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about.
On the other hand, that whole conversation about bread seems to have just drifted off into total obscurity, which is fine, I suppose, but if you take a moment to actually look at that FDA food additive regulation that Sandra Bailey89 was bringing up earlier, you start to see just how much goes into the fine print of what we're consuming. It’s funny how things work out sometimes, isn't it? Just one of those moments where you have to step back, take a breath, and realize that life has this strange, unpredictable way of circling back around to something unexpected. It reminds me of how a slow-moving river eventually finds its path through a rocky canyon, not by fighting the stone, but by simply persisting until the landscape changes. You find yourself smiling at the sheer absurdity of it all, much like watching a perfectly timed comedy bit on a late-night talk show where everything aligns just right. It’s a quiet sort of amusement, really—not a loud laugh, but more of a gentle realization that everything is unfolding exactly as it should, even if it looks a little ridiculous in the moment. People just toss it straight into their bread dough, and honestly, nobody seems to give it a second thought. We end up consuming it about as frequently as we do milk.
James Rogers53 said:I’m not exactly trying to equate milk to Diet Coke, since obviously a soda is a much more complex concoction than just plain milk, but do you honestly believe that everything poured into a container actually gets printed on the label? If you take a second to search Google for additives found in milk, you'll see what I mean. Besides, how else would you explain something like 0.9% milk fat... how is that even produced?
James Rogers53 said:I honestly don't have a clue what specific additives they're using, but I'm fairly certain they're packing them into those low-fat products—you know, the ones labeled as having maybe 0.9% fat. It feels like the exact same tactic used with Coca-Cola; you look at a zero-sugar Coke and see no sugar listed, yet it’s actually loaded with all these different sweeteners that aren't technically sugar, but if you consume them in large amounts, they could very well be more harmful than the real thing..
Exactly, though with Coca-Cola, they actually have to list it on the label for anyone who cares to look, whereas with milk, it isn't quite as transparently documented, and reading through your massive post, it really makes me wonder if we can truly consider these things to be safe at all?
James Rogers53 said:.. and when it comes to those additives, it’s a given they're being tossed in there, especially in the low-fat versions, which unfortunately is what I usually end up grabbing.😁
What kind of additives are we talking about here?
I wonder if that's why people assume milk from small family farms is always the gold standard. It reminds me of a video from a few years back—some guy was out there with two buckets of milk, looking totally bewildered by all the fuss over bacterial counts, as if bacteria weren't just a natural part of the whole process. But honestly, the reality of small-scale farming can be tricky; those tiny operations with just one or two cows often struggle to afford regular veterinary care, so there's a much higher risk they might skip the vet entirely and just pick up some unregulated antibiotics on the black market to treat their livestock without any oversight. As for the whole hormone debate, you can't really take American studies and apply them directly to our situation here, since using hormones in livestock is perfectly legal in the United States, whereas it's strictly prohibited in Europe.
Arslan said:Look, please don't feed me that nonsense. If you really want to talk, explain to the rest of us what you mean by "covering for a surgeon." Let's be honest here: when one doctor slips up, there is a very high probability that another colleague will step in to cover their tracks. If you mess up in IT, you might crash a system, cause a power outage, kill the phone lines, or botch some bank statements or tax filings—which is certainly bad—but the chances of you accidentally killing someone through a coding error are slim, and it would be painfully obvious who caused the glitch, meaning management would hold them accountable. ... Not to mention all those countless instances regarding patient care where there is zero communication, where patients are treated like cattle, or where people are kept in a hospital bed unnecessarily just so Medicare can bill for the stay; places where you wait months for an exam (unless you have a special recommendation, then you're in immediately), or where after surgery they just stitch a patient up in a hurry, thinking, "it's not like they're a supermodel, we don't have time for fine suturing." All these little acts of negligence go unpunished, yet they inflict physical damage and emotional distress. Just imagine how a person feels when they are in pain and need an exam for a diagnosis, only to be told they have to wait several months. 👎
Well, besides the fact that you're acting quite full of yourself for a doctor 😬 , I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Honestly, if everyone wrote letters to the media every single time their computer crashed, a server went down, or they encountered a software bug, there wouldn't be any room left to write about medical malpractice. The reality is that those medical errors hurt us much more deeply, and we aren't satisfied with just seeing a doctor get a stern talking-to from their supervisor before going back to work.
As for the second part of your argument, my own personal experience tells a completely different story. Over the last year, I've visited most of the major hospitals in Chicago, and I haven't encountered a single rude doctor or nurse; quite the opposite, actually, I mostly have nothing but praise for them. Emergency cases were handled urgently, usually within a few hours. We didn't bribe anyone. Granted, we did pull a few strings once to bypass a waiting list, but I don't think the facility that helped us is any more to blame than I am for asking for it. The Klaić hospital especially surprised me in a good way—they scheduled all our tests within a month (which is pretty much what the law requires anyway), we were able to do almost everything in the afternoon, and we never waited more than fifteen minutes past our appointment time. Sure, one physician shocked me with his arrogance, but should I curse all these other professionals because of him? Unfortunately, people much prefer to retell unpleasant experiences, and that is why views like yours tend to form.
Justin Fox said:... The fallout includes a massive spike in medical costs and this whole trend of defensive medicine, where doctors order a mountain of expensive tests just to build a legal shield against potential lawsuits. ...
Well, if those specialists had actually run some of those high-end diagnostic tests on that woman, she might still have both her eyes right now, which I suspect would be far more valuable to her than any settlement check ever could be. I wouldn't necessarily categorize that as a negative consequence, at least not in the way we usually think about it, though I do suppose it ties back into that point about the rising cost of healthcare mentioned earlier.
brightmarlin44 said:Look, northerncobra27, you know how I mentioned that whole thing about the scientific paper? That was just me being cheeky, a bit of dry irony, nothing more than a passing joke... you know how it goes. So, I guess it finally clicked for you, didn't it?😁 👍
User456! Hang on a second, let me catch up... my brain works a little slower when it comes to catching those subtle jabs...😁 👍
brightmarlin44 said:By the way, I have a question: which is actually better—a scientific paper based on an incredibly tiny sample size (meaning there's a massive margin for error) or just a paper that essentially repeats existing research? You know, because repetition is supposed to be one of the foundations of learning.
To be honest, neither of those really qualifies as a legitimate scientific paper, so you can't really say one is superior to the other. It’s a bit of a false choice. This actually brings to mind that questionable "survey" people conducted regarding careerism and burnout among surgeons out in Chicago.
brightmarlin44 said:By the way, do you think I could actually use the data from this survey to put together a Master's thesis? Just a thought... lol
Honestly, a Master's degree isn't really the big move anymore; if you're going down that academic path, you might as well aim straight for the PhD right away.
tinitrus said:Why am I so curious? :-) Well, isn't it obvious—I'm working on a research paper, just a small publication really, but you know how it goes, you have to gather all those references, and once I've got enough under my belt, I'll finally be making my way into the Who's Who
I honestly can't wrap my head around why fewer and fewer young people seem interested in going into medicine these days, but... based on what I've seen from the discussions here and what you're calling a survey for your research paper or upcoming publication? 🤣 I mean, before my curiosity actually gets the better of me, could you tell me what field of science we're talking about?
brightmarlin44 said:... Regarding northerncobra2—look, I wasn't trying to insult you, so please don't take aim at me either. If this particular topic isn't your cup of tea, there’s really no need to jump into 😬 it
I had this idea in my head that using quotation marks would act as some kind of shield to protect me from being seen as insulting, but clearly, that isn't how it works in practice. At the end of the day, I try my best not to label people as fools just because of a single comment they made. And calling someone a provocateur—well, I don't think that qualifies as an insult, does it? Or perhaps I misunderstood what your actual intentions were here?
Since this is an online forum, I'm going to hold onto my right to decide for myself which discussions I want to join, even if the subject matter isn't exactly my favorite.
It’s honestly unbelievable. Don't you know how to read a quote? I was essentially saying that you all seem to be implying, if you read between the lines, that a person's inherent worth can be measured simply by their profession. Because what you're suggesting is that doctors aren't actually worth the high salaries they pull in... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Are we really back to debating my literacy again? And as for answering your question about what a single human being is worth to you—fine, let's say you took my comment as a provocation; that truly wasn't my intention. It was just that the comparison to Janica got me thinking, because she really is the gold standard among her peers. Does every single doctor deserve to be compared to Janica, or is that honor reserved only for the absolute best in the field? -----------------------------------------------------------------------
...and I'm certainly not sitting here arguing with myself, but rather with a whole crowd of people who seem bothered by the social standing of doctors, even though they claim to be perfectly happy with the status quo🙄 :you can think whatever you want ----------------------------------------------------------------------- If you take a moment to actually read closely, you'll see that most of the people here are just acting arrogant and condescending. Has anyone actually attacked any of the doctors who stepped up to join this discussion? ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, are you now going to try and dictate who gets to stop responding first? ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you even bother replying to me if it isn't for the exact same reason—because you can't bring yourself to agree with me.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Honestly, I find myself wondering why I'm even replying to you. Then again, you can find all the answers you need in that other rambling thread of yours. Look, I'll be the first to walk away once I've answered your final question.
And you didn't even ask what actually happened to that idiot who turned this entire thread into such a complete mess for everyone involved. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I couldn't care less what happened to "that idiot." In fact, it would actually be quite satisfying if the provocation had just sunk along with the person who started it.
P.S. Now I'm off to hunt through the rules to see where it says how to split a post when you want to divide it up.😳
What is the actual value of a single human life to you? What kind of metrics would you even use to measure that?
And honestly, I’m genuinely curious about what prompted you to dig this thread back up; nobody seemed to give it a second thought until you decided to stir the pot. It felt like it was just about to slip into total obscurity on page two, too. Or perhaps you think we all missed the fact that this is nothing more than a blatant provocation?
A quick question for the moderators—why aren't threads like this just wiped clean? Is there some perceived connection to health or something that makes people think it belongs here?