If you don't understand the science behind pasteurization, you should absolutely "trust the experts", aka scientists, or if you prefer, trust the old wisdom of previous generations who knew the value of pasteurization and watched people die of preventable illnesses before it came along.

However pasteurized milk allows for factory production and raw milk does not. That’s the real reason why it’s banned.

The same government that banned raw milk allows Doritos to be sold in the billions and even bought with Snap/EBT, btw.

It seems pretty anti-science to me, going against such foundational food and health science.

It also seems directly related to anti-vax anti-science efforts because Louis Pasteur was also a critical early scientist involved in vaccines (through efforts against Cholera and beyond).

The problem with this kind of thing is that the story looks different at the level of a government than at the individual level.

The FDA article mentioned 2,645 illnesses and 228 hospitalizations in a 20-year period, and that was a period during which raw milk was heavily regulated, so would be likely to be significantly higher otherwise.

Still, the odds of you as an individual getting sick from raw milk would be relatively low. Does that mean it shouldn't be regulated? It's not a purely scientific decision.

Perhaps another way to go would be warning labels on raw milk. Still, I bet that would produce much higher illness numbers than the ones quoted above.

In the end the question is whether the government should be trying to help people stay healthy or not. If the goal is actually "Make America Healthy Again," then requiring milk to be pasteurized is an obvious choice.

Destroying vaccines, for example, is something they've wanted for a long time.

They're not masterminds. They really are this crazy.

It’s just a bunch of power games by individuals with NPD engaging in elite overproduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction

I see your point, but is it an achievement? Is there not some amount of civil rights abuse or a breakdown of society that would warrant discussion on all possible spaces?

I say this as someone that feels conflicted to see a daily twitter feed of tech leaders celebrating the performance of their favorite LLM breaking some new record when citizens and residents are being detained or discriminated against in violent and appalling ways... sometimes just meters from a fancy tech office!

I'm talking the mandates pushed by "experts" to force young K-12 students (Like my sister) into remote schooling that had profound impacts on their social life and education. Or when California arrested people for going to a beach or a public park based on the advice of their respective health experts. Or when Nevada closed Churches, but not Liquor Stores and Pot Dispensaries, because the experts had decided Constitutional Rights weren't an essential activity.

Perhaps when those mistakes are acknowledged things can go back to normal.

Now the culture wars and loyalty tests of the current government occur just about everywhere. There is no limit to the scope of topics that are part of the test, no objection will be tolerated. Any objection means you're <insert buzzword here>.

We're nearing the point where your point of view might even limit your choice of college (or maybe any college) if the president gets his way.

But science is about questions demanding proof and rigor, verification, reproducible results. It's not about blindly saying "Yeah my questioning makes a bunch of unsupported claims equally valid".

There's a lot more to science than just questioning, and the MAHA folks have little interest in questioning their own unfounded beliefs.

It's important to understand that some people use "healthy skepticism" and "I'm just asking questions" as a cover screen to promote their desired policy. That isn't the scientific method.

1. Ask a question 2. Form a hypothesis 3. Experiment to test it 4. Analyze results 5. Draw conclusions 6. Repeat

The MAHA folks essentially disregard this as a valid process for gathering knowledge. They occasionally talk about experiments and studies, but they are selectively chosen to support their conclusions in a posthoc way, ignoring both evidence to the contrary and basic methodological issues. When people describe them as "anti-science," I believe this is the kind of thing they have in mind.

> "Disaster Spending Has Become an $8 Trillion Engine for US Growth"