No , I also showed a direct correlation between introduction of raw dairy consumption in the Neolithic era and a corresponding drop in bone-health/bone-strength in Neolithic-era peoples.
Doubtful at best, and it could be only correlation. Can you show that raw dairy consumption corresponds with bone deterioration given the same level of technology and cooking/processing of food otherwise? I doubt you can. The Pottenger studies certainly showed the opposite for cats. As did Weston Price's investigations for humans.
Also, you cannot see the forest for the trees, as you keep on whining about raw vs pasteurised when many other issues exist. Take the calcium issue, since calcium is more absorbable when in raw dairy, it follows logically that it is more harmful as regards excess calcium than pasteurised dairy.
Blah, blah, blah. You keep claiming that calcium in raw milk is an issue with no evidence thereof. All you have is a hypothesis and simple inference based on national reports of consumption/sales of cooked dairy in various countries (I don't think they even looked at total calcium consumption, only dairy consumption).
How do you explain the fact that the Pottenger studies showed that cooked milk and cooked meat deteriorate bones, but raw milk and raw meat heal bones in cats?
Then there are the hormones in raw dairy, and the fact that becoming infected from raw dairy consumption is far more likely than re consumption of pasteurised dairy.
There are also hormones in raw meat and blood. How come they're not worse for us too?
Pure drivel on your part. I had already pointed out links re Pottenger's meat study which proved my point.
Not really. As I said, the studies showed that a fully raw diet heals all disease slowly over the lifespan and increasingly over the generations, whereas a cooked diet generates and worsens all disease slowly over the lifespan and increasingly over the generations. They showed this regardless of the ratio of milk to meat being 1:2 or 2:1. The studies also showed that having simply 1/3rd raw was not enough to counteract the detriments of the 2/3rds cooked diet.
Milk being raw and of good quality was so important that even in the 100% raw groups, if the milk came from cows that received supplemental feed of irradiated yeast (supposedly for added vitamin D), the healing health effects were severely diminished. Likewise as the milk went from raw to pasteurized to processed milk concentrate, the damaging effects of each step were incremental, not only in the overall health of the cats but also in the nutrients able to be absorbed by the plants growing in the area where the cats' excretions were deposited.
I asked how dumbI already pointed to evidence of cats being kept as pets as far back as 9500 years ago at least. People would not put mere domesticated animals into the same grave as their human owner, but they would indeed put that human owner's favourite pet in the same grave.
Pure nonsense. How do you know what people thought of when they buried an animal with them? Plenty of societies buried all sorts of things with the bodies, including ornaments, clothes, coffins, trinkets, religious symbols, weapons, armor, food, flags, etc. Were all these pets too?
Likewise, pet ownership in caucasian majority countries is universal nowadays and few if any people actually bury their pets in the same space as the owners.
Also, cats aren't ideal hunters of rats, for example - that is why people who want to kill rats prefer to use terriers, among other more suitable dog breeds for that purpose.
Nobody uses cats to hunt anything. That's just a gross misunderstanding. Dogs can be used to hunt rats during the day, owing to their superb sense of smell as well as their pack hunting brain and the ability to submit to their human owners and help them in whatever they can. In some areas people do this even today for food. But nobody was going around hunting mice. There's barely any food in a mouse. The point is not to catch mice for food, but to reduce mice populations because mice will eat up your grain stores and multiply, leading to a growing problem. Not to mention the hairs, saliva, urine and feces of the mice will taint your grain as well.
Cats don't have as good a sense of smell as dogs, and they don't have the pack hunting brain nor the submissiveness of dogs. What they do have is eyes that are wonderful in low light conditions, and since mice are most active at times when it's dark, cats are perfect for reducing the mice population. Also, cats will hunt mice on their own without you needing to do anything to either help, command, train, or incentivize them.
Oh, and Ancient Egyptians kept all sorts of animals as pets(such as hippos,crocodiles etc.:-
https://www.ancient.eu/article/875/pets-in-ancient-egypt/ . Hippos and the like do NOT make suitable domesticated animals.
I'm not gonna keep reading through all your hundreds of links without you at least providing some sort of explanation or reasoning. I keep showing you that you misrepresent much of the content of even the links you yourself post, and you just ignore it and keep spamming links.
Oh, and the ancient egyptians did not only regard cats as pets but also had an egyptian cat-goddess, Bastet.
Medieval Europe had plenty of lion-like depictions in their banners and shields. In much of India today, cows are sacred. It doesn't make them pets.
Regardless of what they believe in, they have the right to criticise various dodgy aspects of the studies.
And I still showed you how their criticisms were unfounded. Yet you disregard my points and focus only on their "rights". I was only adding that to show that you're using the same arguments as the people who want you dead. You're even citing their claims as true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_cuisine#Class_constraints In this link, it shows that the upper classes in the Middle-Ages mainly went in for meat and many other foods due to the extra variety signifying higher social status, as well as the greater cost, not because meat was viewed then as being superior.
That could simply be a convoluted way of saying that it's healthier. The fact remains that when they could afford it, they'd eat mainly meats, with very little grain.
Oh, and the romans were only decadent and degenerate near the end of the empire.
I believe they were rotten to the core from the get-go, as all agricultural democratic societies are. But it does take time for the decivilizing process to degenerate the society to the point where the fundamental problems become visible.
It shouldn't be a surprise that vegetarianism, publicly praised rampant homosexuality and other anti-life, totally degenerate behaviors arose and flourished in these places.
