Christopher Cogswell wrote:

> * Another "aha" perhaps many of you will be familiar with, was in
> relation to the Pottenger research.  In Pottenger's experiments, the
> "nutritionally challenged" cats could not reproduce after 3 generations,
> (or infertility was the rule).  Sally pointed out that modern folk have
> been on junk diets for often about 3 generations.  And look at our rate
> of infertility (not to mention anti-social behavior).  When she said
> this I got shivers from head to toe, and they lasted for about 10
> seconds.  We are eating ourselves to extinction!  & our best response is
> fertility drugs, (and then octuplets - wonder what that does to the
> mother and kids...).

Great report, Christopher---are you going to post it to JR's Rawtimes?  If not, I'd like permission to pass it over.

A point that should be made here: Pottenger was NOT experimenting to see if cooked food harmed the genetic potential of the cats.  He was actually using the cats as test subjects to check the quality of adrenal extracts.  The thriving of the raw-food cats vis-a-vis the degeneration of the cooked-food cats was noticed accidentally.  Also, as a small farmer, I must say that the story about the degeneration of the *beans* grown on soil fertilized with dung from the cooked-food cats struck
me like a thunderbolt.  This observation, also incidental, should be studied by every ag student.

All in all, I would suggest you NOT enter specific arguments with anyone who has failed to actually read "Pottenger's Cats" (perhaps several times).  It's my thought that it would be all too possible you could be discussing 'apples' while they would be arguing 'oranges' (and low Brix ones at that).   :)

My best,
Rex Harrill