They can "target" whatever they want. They base their whole analysis on survey data from various countries according to the comparative levels of consumption of cooked dairy. It's not me who has to prove that raw dairy wouldn't cause any problems. That's not how science works.
All this is solid evidence against dairy with multiple studies, not just surveys. By contrast, all we have are a few studies showing that raw dairy may be helpful against asthma in some cases. Pathetic, really.
Gotcha. So meat is very different when going from raw to cooked, but dairy isn't, because you hate dairy.
I had simply pointd out the obvious that meat is not the same thing as dairy, whether raw or cooked.
And the meat of a deer is meant to help the deer run around. What's that got to do with anything?
A foolish analogy as meat is not the same thing as raw dairy. Or to use your lack of logic ad absurdum, the leg of a deer would be useless for another species to graft on in place of a missing limb as the immune system would react against it, causing rejection of tissue, among many other health-problems.
It's only absurd to you because you didn't understand it. All you can do is name a few species from animals of a completely different class.
Another false claim. For one thing it has been pointed out that the reason for why feral children raised by wolves could not happen in real-life is because wolves`milk is toxic for human infants, due to excess casein in it. Also, online it has been reported that sheep, goats and chimps that are fed cows’ milk sometimes develop leukemia.
How does that make them unscientific? Again, I think you don't understand what something being unscientific means. In fact it's you who is using unscientific reasoning by claiming to have proven that raw dairy is harmful because some people have some evidence to suggest cooked dairy might be.
It is unscientific because cats were used not humans in the test. Cats are not humans Indeed, the thalidomide crisis was caused by the fact that the scientists were wrongly reassured by more positive tests done on animals. And the studies I mentioned did NOT focus on the issue of raw vs pasteurised but on the issue of excess calcium. Ironically, since pasteurisation makes calcium less absorbable in the body than with raw dairy, raw dairy is clearly worse as regards the excess calcium issue.
This has nothing to do with "scientific rigor". Nobody is arguing that a diet of pure dairy is superior to other diets. That would be like telling someone who claims that some salt is healthy to put test animals on a 100% salt diet, with no other nutrients being fed to them.
Well, that is at least something. You accept that raw dairy is not a complete food, like meat is, and is harmful as 100% of the diet.
The studies showed basically the same result on 2/3 dairy as 1/3 dairy.
Wrong. The meat study showed that even including raw dairy as 1/3 of a diet including cooked meat was not enough to counter the ill-health effects of cooked meat. Pretty useless, really.
No, it was after. And in any case, they wouldn't have been fed dairy on a regular basis. Their feed was primarily the rodents and birds they'd catch, which is why they were kept around in the first place. They weren't pets.
Complete bollocks. Cats were kept as pets for countless millenia and were fed by humans on the foods that humans themselves ate, including raw dairy. I could cite ancient egypt as an example, but keeping cats as pets not rodent-catchers goes WAY further back. Incidentally, you should know that human rat-catchers use terriers, not cats, for hunting rats as cats are not very good at hunting rats.
You keep reading whatever you want into what I say. I didn't say there is more difference between a cat and a human than between a human and a cow. I said there's more difference in dygestive abilities between a cat an a cow, than between a human and a cow.
Irrelevant, really. What we need to convince you is a study of cats fed on cat milk compared to cats fed on cows milk, all raw.
[/quote]
That's because you're misunderstanding the actual goal of the breeding. Intelligence isn't always the best trait to have, just like for humans, it doesn't matter that much if cows aren't in perfect health, as long as they give us better health. Also, many of these problems are due to these animals being fed unnatural diets in modern times.
It matters a great deal. If an animal is in bad health, then the meat, and especially, the milk will be harmful. For example, I have heard of mothers transmitting diseases to their babies via their breastmilk.
Designed by who? God? Because if so, well then God probably also designed us with the ability to farm cattle and get their milk. If you mean designed by natural selection, well then again, we've selected the cows to give us better milk for us, too.
Wrong again, human breeding, or rather inbreeding for dysgenic traits, is not the same as natural selection. It is wholly unnatural. Like we see with cooking, unnatural processes are harmful to human health.
I didn't say it doesn't differ. Btw, in that link it kinda looks like they're not very different at all. Definitely way more similar to each other than all the other milks from all the other mammals around.
Also, keep in mind that the selection of cow milk may not be to suit the needs of baby humans the best, but adult humans.
Cows milk is a ruminant milk. To get healthier milk, one would have to drink chimpanzee milk as a human. As regards babies, most humans gradually develop more and more lactose intolerance over time as adults, as adult mammals are not supposed to be drinkng milk, however raw, past infancy.
Looking at people's teeth is quick and easy, and through his studies he found that this correlated to general health in peoples whom he had studied more in deph. Also, look at Pottenger's studies again. Tooth decay corresponds with all the other health problems caused by the cooked foods diet.
Tooth decay is also mainly caused by excess sugar and processed foods. So the absence of such foods, rather than the raw dairy is the most likely cause for good dental health. I am suspicious of WP as he was very selective in his photos. I mean, given a lack of dentists and the incidence of disease and famine, it is impossible for more than a few HGs to have had perfect teeth throughout their lives.
[/quote]
They were also stronger than modern day hunter gatherers. There's many other reasons to explain this, rather than simply blame dairy. They were cooking more of their foods, for starters, even if they weren't eating much grains.[/quote] It at least shows that raw dairy is so useless as a health-food that it cannot counteract the consumption of cooked animal foods.
Not really. Bread and other grains and legumes have always been associated with the poor. In the middle ages the nobility would use bread as a plate to serve food in, they didn't eat it, they just gave it to the poor to eat after the meal.
This is simply not true. Poor people would poach wild animals to get meat. They would also seek out frogs legs and raw oysters and lobsters and wild mushrooms, all of which were deemed disgusting poor-man`s food centuries ago. And upper classes did indeed eat bread as a staple.
