Pottenger

May 14, 2004

" They do not mean that humans should eat only raw foods--humans are

not cats. "

I'll toss in my 2 cents on the above quote from the link Viola sent.

Granted, humans are not cats, nor any other animal. No other species

of animal in nature on the entire planet (that I know of) cook their

foods. At one time even humans did not cook food. Why should it

surprise us that any animal would do better on raw foods?

Jeff

>Nora, please without emotions, what about these facts:

>

://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/ancient_dietary_wisdom.html

>

May 14, 2004

Sometimes people will use the animal experiments to say, well, that is only

applicable to the particular species that was experimented on. Regardless

of one's feelings toward animal experiments today, historically they were

used to test theories using methodology that was unethical to use on humans,

and also because of the relatively faster maturation rate, shorter gestation

period, and shorter lifespan. Similar experimentation was not done in a

controlled laboratory setting on humans because it would take too long, and

you would not be able to do the same bone analysis at the end. (Thankfully,

no committee on human subjects (at least today) would ever allow the

subjects to be " sacrificed " !)

We do have to extrapolate from those cat studies to humans. One can

logically state that humans would not (and should not) eat raw meats, but

certainly we can use the results of the Pottenger study to criticize the

rampant pasteurization of milk, and the use of evaporated and sweetened

condensed milks.