'we' like to think that honey is special and doesn't act like sugar in the body.  Get a blood glucose monitor to test that theory.    He wrote that whenever he traveled butter and honey always accompanied him on the plane. I don't remember the ratio having just a 'tiny' bit of honey, maybe you can easily find the quote..  My guess is that wasn't the only time he consumed it.  For I keep reading from you, honey with this and that.   He loved his honey and butter, and now I guess it's with cheese too, 'as one can't digest dry cheese without it.'

I wonder how many generations it takes  of eating RVAF to fully get rid of the negative effects of  cooked foods?

This is quite frankly a waste of time. I spent ages writing text on a smartphone on this nonsense as my PC was out of order at the time. Basically, my scientific and other evidence provided in this thread has been extensive whereas  dpl has merely provided poor scientific studies on rare occasions and mostly just  religious-fundamentalist opinions on raw dairy. No point in continuing. Hier stehe Ich, Ich kann nichts anders.

I'm not saying animals don't live healthier eating raw, but Pottengers' study seems flawed to me in that 95 percent or higher of cats in the US eat Only cooked diets and live respectable lives in terms of health and go on and have little reproductive issues, contrary to what Pottenger is trying to point out.   What am I missing here?
   IF,,  I'm not missing some important key factor, may I then point out how eager we can be to want to believe in the 'magic' of raw, as if it's going to save us from death.

   *All my pets have eaten entirely raw forever

I already pointed out that  the issue was poor bone-health caused by excess calcium consumption, the issue of raw vs cooked is not just irrelevant here, it is bogus. You see, the calcium in raw dairy is far more absorbable than with pasteurised dairy, thus making raw dairy far MORE likely to cause poor bone-health than pasteurised dairy.

  The issue of raw vs cooked is only 1 issue among many. In this case, the focus is on excessive calcium. Now since calcium from raw dairy is more absorbable than from pasteurised dairy due to lack of heat, one can convincingly argue that raw dairy does not provide good bone-health at all, given the various studies. That is, so far, no evidence shows that pasteurising dairy makes the calcium in it  highly toxic in particular , to bone-health.

Wrong. The studies showed that including raw dairy did not counter the negative effects of cooked animal food.

  That is, of course, nonsense, as cats were kept as pets in ancient egypt and there is solid evidence for cats being kept as pets 1000s of years before that:-  https://myria.com/animals-when-were-cats-first-kept-as-pets

Wrong. Taken from skeptvet:-  "Yes, Pottenger’s study comes up often in discussions of raw diets. Though not bad for his era, his work with the cats is pretty sloppy by modern standards, and there is not enough information in his published writings to determine crucial things like whether there were differences other than cooking between the food the two groups received, whether the groups of cats themselves were different in terms of condition, health, age, sex, and all sorts of other relevant variables. And even from the information that is out there, it is clear that neither group received an adequate diet, especially in terms of taurine, not discovered to be an essential amino acid for cats until after Pottenger’s time. So his work cannot legitimately be regarded as scientific evidence in favor of raw diets, though it is often cited as such."

Easily disproven with links:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_dining_in_the_Roman_Empire (most Romans would have eaten 70 percent at least of their diet in the form of cereals and beans.

https://healthandfitnesshistory.com/ancient-nutrition/medieval-european-nutrition/ shows that upper classes also ate lots of grains, and so on and on.

I guess even just killing an animal could be considered processing.

One of the reasons I favor thymus is because only young animals have thymuses. By the time a human is 50 years old their thymus has shrunk down to less than 10% of it's maximum size. The same is true for cattle at a much younger age. Supposed to be the gland of youth. I ran out yesterday and have 10 pounds defrosting that I will slice as soon as it thaws out a little more and refreeze the slices in baggies to make smoothies out of.

Next to my Ninja blender, my slicer is my most useful tool for processing meat. Did I just use the word processing? Does that mean sliced and blended meats are processed?

Raw tongue has huge amounts  of raw fat in it which  is , imo, very healthy. It also has plenty of vitamins and minerals in it, like any other raw organ.

I do not think that raw organs are necessarily "better" than any other. However, in the past, when I had some trouble with my heart skipping beats etc.,  I used to eat a lot  of raw, organic 100% grassfed ox heart, which seemed to help, after all "like cures like".

But the whole additional coyote nonsense makes it clear he was spouting tall stories. Since when do wild coyote packs give humans raw meat? I could understand a coyote stealing from human garbage dumps etc., but this is ridiculous.

Like I said before, they were targetting the issue of excess calcium in dairy, the issue of raw vs cooked is not relevant since you have no solid  scientific data to prove that raw dairy is more protective of bones than pasteurised dairy.

Meat isn't dairy, it is an entirely different substance, not comparable to dairy.

Dairy, ultimately, is meant to sustain and help infants of the very species it is created from, that's all.

Even the meat comparison is absurd in other ways - I mean, if you eat the meat of a poison-dart frog, you die.

The Pottenger studies were unscientific because they based evidence on cats not humans.

The studies also  did not focus on a low amount of dairy but on lots of it. Even the study focusing on lesser amounts of raw dairy involved the raw dairy component being 1/3 of the diet. For scientific rigor, they should have done long-term tests on cats fed only on raw dairy only. Interestingly, in the meat study on wikipedia:- " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Pottenger_Jr.  In one study, one group of cats was fed a diet of two-thirds raw meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil while the second group was fed a diet of two-thirds cooked meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil. The cats fed the all-raw diet were healthy while the cats fed the cooked meat diet developed various health problems. So, the study shows that, even including 1/3 of the diet as raw dairy was not enough to stop the cats from developing health-problems.

Wrong, cats were domesticated well before dairy was invented as a food by humans. Therefore the likelihood is that cats have been exposed to raw dairy as long as humans have been.

Wrong again. Cows have multiple stomachs and extra enzymes etc. etc. unlike humans. Cats have simpler digestive systems more similiar to humans.

Also, humans are very poor at eugenics. Usually, any eugenics programs lead to horrors like the Habsburg Lip - take domesticated animals for example. Researchers have found that they on average have brain-sizes c.10% less than their wilder counterparts, and are generally more stupid than the latter. Cows with their unnaturally large udders get extra health-problems due to the millenia of dysgenics, and other domesticated species like dogs also have special health-problems if they are too inbred a breed.

And, as I pointed out before, cows' milk is designed to feed a calf and get it to adult size within  a 2 year period -

human milk differs considerably from cows' milk as it is designed to grow a much larger hominid brain compared to a cow. Here is data showing the wide differences:- http://www.jbc.org/content/16/2/147.full.pdf

In order to get an accurate idea of peoples' health, it is necessary to spend more than a few days or weeks to examine them. That way, he could have learned a lot more about health-problems that take much longer to manifest. Basically, he was a naive believer in the Noble Savage theory and focused too much on the issue of teeth. I mean, just by lacking sweets and modern sugars, the tribespeople would have had healthier teeth - it does not mean that they thrived on raw dairy consumption. *sigh*

The evidence that palaeo-era bones were much stronger than in Neolithic times is all over the Net and easily googleable. My point was simple:- if raw dairy really helped build bones, then one would have seen some sort of positive effect on bones, particularly among Neolithic-era societies which consumed raw dairy but no grains. Yet, the bones of palaeo-era peoples were much stronger, indicating that raw dairy is at the very least useless re building bones, and quite likely very harmful.

All classes, even up to  middle-ages, ate large amounts of grains. Sure, the upper classes would have been more likely to have a wider variety of diet, but not on a regular basis.