No, they were indicating that excess calcium was the problem. You have not put forward any proof that excess calcium from raw dairy would be immune to this issue.
Again, they can claim whatever they want, but that's not how science works. You're still looking at people having trouble when consuming cooked dairy and grains, and blaming it on raw dairy.
Wrong. Milk is not only widely different among the various mammals, it is also different, depending on the mother's and infant's needs, as the female body changes nutrients as required:-
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/seven-most-extreme-milks-animal-kingdom-180956588/
https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/breastfeeding/magical-ways-breastmilk-changes-to-meet-your-babys-needs/
This is like saying that meat from different animals is different, so that some will be ideal for humans whereas others would be harmful. Of course meats from different animals is different. But what's more different, meat from deer to rabbit, or meat that is cooked versus raw?
We even know that regarding the quality of the meat, it's often more important what the animal fed on and how it lived, than the particular species we're dealing with.
Pottenger's study was very unscientific. It focused on cats, not humans, and it did not take into account the obvious fact that cats would thrive better on a raw meat diet than on diets including lots of raw cows' milk.
How does that make the studies unscientific? I'm not sure you understand what something being unscientific means.
The studies showed that raw milk was vastly superior to cooked milk in preventing disease and in recovering from it, showing there's a huge difference between the two, about as much as the difference between raw and cooked meat, perhaps even more.
They also showed that both a high amount of dairy with a lower amount of meat and a low amount of dairy, with a high amount of meat, had the same effects on the cats' health as long as the foods were raw versus cooked. With milk in particular, besides being cooked, it became worse the more processed it was. And even if the milk was raw, but came from cows fed irradiated yeast to produce additional artificial vitamin D, it did not have the healing properties as the regular raw milk. Even the plants fed the excretions of the cats that ate the raw meats and dairy grew much better than those fed the excretions of the cats eating cooked meats and dairy.
You complain about these studies being done on cats, rather than humans. However, the typical paleo argument against dairy is that humans have only been consuming it as adults for 10k years, so they are poorly adapted to it. (which is suspect as I've discussed in my thread about dairy possibly being paleo). Also, that cows and other hervibores have different requirements than humans, and so their milk doesn't suit our needs.
Well these two arguments are much stronger when used on cats. Cats have been exposed to dairy as adults for far less time than humans (and even if you say it's more generations, historically cats wouldn't be fed as much milk as adult humans would consume). Likewise, as a herbivore, a cow's digestive system is more similar to humans, which are omnivores than to cats, which are carnivores. Finally, dairy cows have been bred over thousands of generations to provide milk and dairy products that are more beneficial to humans. It could even be that this effect has been so dramatic that a cow's milk might be even better for humans than for the cows' own offspring.
Weston-Price made all sorts of absurd unscientific claims with short visits to many different tribes. He therefore could not have amassed sufficient data to back up his claims. Now, if he had spent, say, a year or two for each tribe, that would have been more credible..
How does this discredit his findings? Does he have to spend years with each tribe to get a general idea of what they eat and how good their health is compared to city dwellers?
No, the evidence, provided by archaeologists, is clear-cut and available all over the Internet.
The http://darwinian-medicine.com/does-milk-really-strengthen-your-bones/ fact is that if raw dairy were indeed so good for bones, then pastoral societies, which consumed raw dairy but no grains, would have had bones as strong or stronger than in Palaeolithic times.
They did. Again, Weston Price.
Wrong, here's some info on the ancient egyptian diet which states that
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss15/2015/02/12/the-ancient-egyptian-diet/ which states that bread was a major component of all social classes' diets there.
Even in that study, there is confusion. The art is telling them one thing and the lab studies are telling them another. They could be wrong in one or the other or both.
In any case, by the time we get more recorded history, the tendency is clear: large amounts of grain are for the poor. Those who aren't poor mainly eat meats, dairy, eggs, honey, vegetables and fruits.