Are infected beers dangerous?

No

 

No. Try mixing it with a good hoppy beer to counteract, what I presume are, sour notes.

 

Bottle-conditioned beers are more dangerous, depending on their history.

 

I don't believe so but why would anybody finish one.

 

A- What beer , brand, what type, how conditioned bottle draught
B- What did the beer look like in the glass , was the colour what you expected , was it clear of cloudy did it contain chunks ? was it beer ?

solutions
1-- Itś not beer its bottlewash/rinsing water mixed with beer - production error : you will notice the difference , you might get sick to the stomach for a few hours - nothing to worry about , just ask for another ...
2- Itś beer it smells off , it looks cloudy while it should be clear, there are chunks in the beer :
- if all the above the beer bottle might not have been tight enough and the beer has been exposed to outside air ... the whole bottle is off ask for a good one , you might get sick to the stomach for a few hours or get some diarrhea- nothing to worry about
- If the beer smells off , and is not clear while it should be --> only taste can tell if definitely somethings wrong unless
- if the beer is refermented on the bottle and yeast might have made a deposit , the beer itself is ok only the bartender doesn't know how to serve beer , drinking it with the deposit doesn't matter but it might have a different taste, that sticks to the teeth
3 No such thing as infected beer, remember that before WWII in continental Europe even children would drink beer daily , because unboiled water was too dangerous to drink so nobody actually drank water , fermented beer kept you safe from cholera, typhus etc

 

Fair chance it wasn't infected, just off-tasting. Generally, infected beer won't hurt you, though depending on your tendency to become nauseous it could make you feel sick. Still, whether off-tasting or infected, it sucks.

 

My favorite was always Coniston Blue Bird Bitter.It was an authentic beer...

 

Only had that on draft, twice. But I saw bottles in the fridge at a shop the other day. Another excuse to go back...

 

I have this completely unproven theory that wild yeasts /bacteria in beers helps with digestion and your immune system similar to Greek yogurt. Yeah, I'm sticking with that crazy theory. Haven't had a cold, flu etc. in 2-3years (knock on wood)...might also be my obsession with lathering Purrell all the time as well.

 

Hundreds? I suppose you know better than to pose this question seriously then.

 

No. It just tastes like it.
Please remember that beer was served in place of water back when because it was the water which was considered dangerous.

 

I think this chestnut may be getting a little stale.

 

My sincerest apologies for utilizing historical fact to put this idea of an infected beer being dangerous into perspective. While we are in the shaft deep plunges of an administration who seems to be committed to rolling back all kinds of regulations that have to do with our water, and also our environment. It's probably worth noting if you happen to live downstream of pollution.
Carry on

 

I'd suggest he's simply pointing out that there are some strong historical reasons to think the beer instead of water thing may be a myth. See the linked to blog post.

https://leslefts.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-great-medieval-water-myth.html

 

...as well as being much is doubt, according to some modern research.

The great Medieval water myth
The later water myths: Early America

And this is what happens when you start typing a reply, get up and refill the coffee cup, re-read the two linked articles on the topic, and only then hit the "POST REPLY" button (without checking the posts that have been made in the meantime).

 

Could you please point me to some verification of this 'historical fact', some data perhaps or even a written anecdote from the period (or an analysis of that period), so that I might decide for myself if these claims have any factual basis?

It's these very specific claims that are most intriguing. See, I heard that this occurred before the English civil war not World War II, and it was only in Scandinavian countries not all of continental Europe, and that it was in fact smallpox and diphtheria that were the issues. And that an entire generation of children died because they actually did not let them drink beer as is commonly thought.
I do like a good story though.

 

Yes definitely. Because those sours are usually expensive, and once you develop a taste for them your wallet will certainly suffer.

 

Well. I'm going to have to debunk both of them.
Because, The geography of that first essay seems rather limited.
As well. The years mentioned in the first extended citation is long before industry and the metropolis/urban center truly expanded to what we know of today.
citing a 6th century book for a modern era problem? Please.
Another from 1389? Lol.
So, let's talk about 1858, and the great stench of London. How'd that play into what people consumed to quench their thirst? That's actually relevant. Not some chap from the 4th century writing of a poetic love for spring water.
Also, as well. The great migration to America from Europe at large didn't really happen until the 19th century, and some of those patterns were directly derived from the early pressures of the industrial era and where pollution was becoming a problem in what would evolve into the modern day urban center. So the who is being cited, and where they migrated from comes into play with the second essay.
The use of fermented beverages/beer in place of drawn water in what became the modern era would very likely be one of location in relation to that water and just how polluted it was.
Upstream? Nah.
Downstream. You betcha.
In an urban center where the river is treated like a garbage dump. Absolutely.