Posts by Ryan Bailey6

James Rogers53 said:They definitely aren't living longer because of milk.😁 It's also widely known that Scandinavians are increasingly dealing with all sorts of random allergies, whereas Japanese people and Chinese people, who don't really consume much milk, rarely get sick.😁

northerncobra27

I don't drink that toxic Coca-Cola stuff myself.😁

Look, I never actually claimed they live longer *because* of milk. They live longer because they have a high standard of living and access to great healthcare, not because of dairy. My point was simply that the nations with the highest milk consumption on the planet happen to be at the top of the longevity charts—which wouldn't seem so coincidental if milk were actually poison for the body and soul...

Japanese people and Chinese people rarely suffer from allergies? Seriously? Google is your friend.
http://web-japan.org/trends00/honbun/tj000317.html "Allergies are a common ailment in Japan, afflicting one in 10 people."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10760010 Chinese kids are doing just fine with allergies too... as is the rest of Asia. Allergies are on the rise globally, and if milk has anything to do with it at all, it’s very little.

My son is an allergy sufferer. He has asthma, plus he deals with rashes and rhinitis from time to time. I stumbled upon all those theories about milk being bad for allergic kids, so we tried cutting it out of his diet temporarily, thinking there couldn't be any harm in trying... After a month without a single drop of milk or any dairy products—zero improvement (though he did lose weight because he's already a picky eater, and let's be honest, soy milk isn't exactly a caloric match for cow's milk).

Look, if someone decides they don't want to touch dairy for whatever reason, that's their business. No one is forcing them. You just have to make sure your plant-based alternatives actually pack enough calcium and Vitamin D to compensate—because let's be honest, milk is easily one of the most cost-effective ways for the average person to get those nutrients.

wiredcobra11, while you're out there running through graveyards, try not to get trampled by a stampede of Americans, Swedes, Irishmen, Dutchmen, and all the other nations that chug more than half a liter of milk every single day... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk#Nutrition_and_health and coincidentally, they also happen to sit right at the top of the charts for life expectancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy—I mean, I'm genuinely confused as to why they haven't all dropped dead from all that milk yet.

According to the FDA food additive regulation http://www.croacta.com/nn/similar.ph...91995564&tp=sd:

"Unless otherwise specified within this regulation, adding food additives is strictly prohibited to:
... – near-flavored pasteurized or sterilized milk (this includes UHT processed milk) and cream, regardless of the fat content in its original state,

– fermented near-flavored dairy products and fresh cheese..."

How to pasteurize milk at home, according to http://www.bchealthguide.org:

"If you're living out in a rural part of British Columbia and can't get your hands on commercially pasteurized milk, you can use this method for home pasteurization:
First, make sure your milk bottles and caps are completely disinfected. Boil them in water for 10 minutes, or pop them in a preheated oven at 212º F (100º C) for about 20 minutes.
Pour your raw milk into the upper part of a double boiler. Slowly bring the temperature up to at least 145º F (63º C) and hold it right there for no less than 30 minutes. You’ll need to stir it frequently so it doesn't burn and to ensure the heat stays consistent throughout.
Use a clean, dependable thermometer to check the temp constantly. Stick the thermometer about 2/3 of the way down into the milk—don't just let it rest against the bottom or the sides of the pot. If the temperature dips below 145º F (63º C), crank the heat back up to at least 145º F (63º C) and restart your 30-minute timer from scratch.
To cool the milk, quickly place the top part of the double boiler into an ice water bath. Give it a good stir every so often to speed up the cooling process.
Once it's cooled down, pour the milk into those sterilized bottles and stash them in the fridge at 40º F (4º C).

Pasteurized milk stored in the refrigerator should stay good for up to two weeks."

Pay close attention to that last bit. Since we aren't using any additives, milk processed this way should remain usable for two weeks if you keep it refrigerated.

Here is one more Q&A from that same site. This one refers to the laws in British Columbia.
"Do people add additives or preservatives to pasteurized milk?
According to the law, vitamins A and D have to be added to pasteurized milk. Beyond that, nothing else is allowed to be added to the milk."

Honestly, just washing up with warm water and soap every single time you use the restroom is the best way to prevent issues and keep things under control... though I know that's a tough one to pull off strategically since we aren't always at home...

Jack Adams4 said:Nobody is fudging the numbers. Here's the link, go read it yourself if you actually want to know the truth. Source: Benefits of circumcision, assuming, of course, that you can understand English. Heaven forbid Muslims were the ones conducting these studies and proving the facts—what would you even have to say then??
I don't care what you have to say. We are talking about health and the benefits of circumcision. If you want it, get it; if you don't, don't. Don't come at me with stupid comments. This topic was originally brought up under religion, but they said it belonged here. So, if you want to read, go ahead; if not, beat it...
Cheers

I don't see the link, but I did find the page (assuming it's the same one you're looking at), and from a quick glance—since I don't have much time to dig through everything—it seems to downplay the risks quite a bit. Plus, the numbers it lists are a little different from other sources I've found online. On top of that, I couldn't find the specific text you used to start this whole thread.

Don't worry, my English is perfectly fine.

I'm not denying that circumcision can have certain benefits, or that it's sometimes necessary. But, suggesting we should strip every newborn boy of his foreskin just to prevent something that most likely won't even happen to him feels a bit extreme to me.

One thing the text you quoted completely ignores is the actual risks involved (things that *could* happen, just like a man with a foreskin *could* get penile cancer, but doesn't necessarily). So, here's a little bit of info from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical...f_circumcision:

"The American Medical Association cites a complication rate of 0.2%–0.6% based on studies by Gee and Harkavyi. These same studies are also cited by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The American Academy of Family Physicians reports a range from 0.1% to 35%. The American Academy of Pediatrics mentions similar results while adding other statistics ranging from 0.06% to 55%, noting that Williams and Kapila suggested a 2-10% range as a more objective estimate. The AAP also notes that one in 1,000,000 patients may lose their penis due to circumcision."

The literature also mentions fatalities. The American Academy of Family Physicians states that deaths are rare, estimating that one in 500,000 circumcised newborns dies due to the procedure.

Possible complications range from minor bleeding and small local infections to severe systemic infections, loss of part or all of the penis, or surgical errors that jeopardize function. They aren't common, but then again, penile cancer isn't common either. I think we should at least consider and mention the risks before declaring circumcision to be a perfect, purely positive thing in every single way.

Since this is a forum, it feels like it exists specifically for discussion. You know, forums are meant for debating, and debate involves hearing opinions that are different from your own.

Kevin Smith30 said:There’s this medical condition called phimosis, and when that happens, circumcision becomes a necessity. It's not just some religious thing, either—it happens to kids regardless of whether they are Muslim or Jewish. Look, doctors aren't suggesting this just to be difficult or out of spite; they do it because it's actually needed for health reasons.

It’s just like how you get a cavity filled when a tooth starts acting up, rather than just ripping the whole thing out proactively to prevent trouble.

Jack Adams4 said:The logic here is pretty straightforward: uncircumcised men face a higher risk of HIV because the area under the foreskin acts like a perfect little petri dish, trapping vaginal fluids that carry the virus. It’s basically an inviting environment for infection. On the flip side, when a man is circumcised, the skin on the glans is drier and tougher, which makes it much harder for the virus to take hold.
Then you have variables like age, how early someone first has sex, and general education levels
-----Not being circumcised

1) stands as the single biggest risk factor for HIV infection in men;

2) is why there's a 12-fold increase in the risk of urinary tract infections—issues that can actually be fatal for newborns.

3) Every year, somewhere between 600 and 900 uncircumcised men die from penile cancer or have to undergo partial amputations because of it. To put that in perspective: men who were circumcised right after birth essentially don't deal with penile cancer at all.

4) Lack of circumcision is the direct cause of balanitis (inflammation of the head) and phimosis (narrowing of the foreskin). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys deal with these issues by the time they hit eight years old—problems that just don't exist in circumcised boys.

5) Furthermore, women whose husbands aren't circumcised end up facing higher rates of cervical cancer.
Source: Benefits of circumcision
Best,

I’m honestly dying to know where that number comes from—this idea that uncircumcised men are dropping like flies from penile cancer (claiming 600 to 900 deaths annually). According to Wikipedia, the global incidence of penile cancer is about 1 in 100,000 (and in developed nations, roughly 70% of those diagnosed either recover or at least survive past the five-year mark). Even the American National Cancer Institute reported that in 2007, only 290 men in the entire USA died from penile cancer or other male genital tract issues. That is a tiny number when you consider there are about 150 million men here, and at least half of them aren't circumcised. Then look at the male population in Denmark, where less than 1.5% of men are circumcised; their penile cancer rates have been steadily dropping for 50 years and sit well below the global average. Experts attribute this to general improvements in socioeconomic conditions and hygiene habits (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/frisch/).

Look, I don't care if people choose to be circumcised or not—that's their business. But trying to scare people by exaggerating the "horrific dangers" of having a foreskin by fudging the statistics is a pretty stupid tactic these days, especially when anyone can just jump online and fact-check multiple sources.

http://honeymoons.about.com/cs/femal...a/cystitis.htm

The most practical advice—which you’ll actually find on that page too—is to make sure you pee both right before and as soon as possible after sex. It’s all about flushing out the urethra to prevent things from building up.

Honestly, don't feel like you have to wait two weeks for your OBGYN appointment. Just head over to your primary care physician now. They're going to want to run a urine analysis anyway, so you might as well get the ball rolling immediately.

It really all comes down to your body composition.

If you look at those online BMI calculators, they’ll tell you anywhere from 158 to 209 lbs. But honestly, I don't trust those numbers all that much... I know two people who have the exact same stats—same height, same weight—but one looks lean, almost skinny, while the other has a bit more of a soft, stocky build according to the BMI scale.

Look, I’ll be the first to admit I don't know everything about this specific topic 🙂 but my point is this: if there were actual signs pointing toward TB, a doctor would have already flagged it. You shouldn't be stuck trying to play amateur diagnostician on an internet forum just to figure out what's going on with your health 😁

How many calories are we talking about here? Since I stay pretty active with sports, I’m probably looking at nothing less than 2,000 a day.
http://www.bloodindex.org/Daily_Calorie_Calculator.php

Sure, but there was pneumonia involved—likely strep—which my pediatrician mentioned could also be what caused the pleural effusion. There wasn't really anything else pointing toward TB, and since the skin test came back clear, they went ahead and did the gastric lavage just to be safe.
Look, I’m not complaining at all. Honestly, I’m actually glad they ran all those tests! I just meant that if there’s even a hint of TB, a doctor is going to want to run those diagnostics regardless of whether the patient thinks of it first or not.

I honestly feel like doctors tend to just brush things off or play it safe when it comes to TB. If they had actually suspected it, they would’ve run the tests already—I mean, running a basic skin test isn't exactly breaking the bank. When my mom’s son was dealing with some complications from pneumonia—specifically a pleural effusion—they didn't just stop at one test. They went through a whole battery of them: the skin test, plus two different gastric lavage tests, one rapid and another one where they basically let a culture grow for a few weeks. It’s funny because, aside from that fluid buildup, there wasn't anything else pointing toward TB, but they were thorough regardless.

Thanks so much for the info!😘

Hey there,
A friend of mine was asking for some help. She was born with severe hip dysplasia and is gearing up for a total hip replacement, so she asked if I could look into something specific for her:
She heard through the grapevine that there’s an orthopedic surgeon over in Carmel-by-the-Sea who uses this new technique. Apparently, instead of the standard procedure where they pull out the entire joint and swap in all those artificial parts, they only remove a much smaller portion of the joint and use way less "hardware." The idea is that the surgery itself is less invasive and the recovery time is much faster.
Look, I’m just a layman, so none of this medical jargon makes any sense to me. But she asked me to do a little digging online, and honestly, I don't even know what terms to search for because I can't even guess what this specific procedure might actually be called...
Does anyone here know anything about this? Does this description ring a bell for anyone who knows the specifics of what this might be?
Thanks in advance for helping a friend out.