Hi Lynton,

> >> > What
> >> > they fail to tell you is that almost every cow is treated with
> >> > antibiotics,
>
> Where do you get this information?
>
You've obviously never milked cows. The cream which is applied to
the teats contains antibiotics (i.e. both to protect the cow and
the suction tubes of the milking machines).

> >> > You either get the pus in your milk
> >> > (which you do up to a certain level in most cases anyway) or you
> >> > get both the pus and the antibiotics used to "cure" the problem.
> >> > This also applies to cows which are raised "biologically" and
> >> > "organically" because it is a legal requirement.
> >>
> >> That is not the case here in the U.S. Here, a dairy farmer can choose to
> >> avoid antibiotics completely, and can sell his milk to consumers who don't
> >> want antibiotics in their milk.
> >>
> >So you are saying that, due to a lack of a law, dairy farmers can
> >also sell milk containing pus? Bon appetit (either way).
>
> Milk with pus would be rejected by the milk authority.
> Organic farmers seperate their ill animals from the herd until they are well
> again.
>
Rather contradictory statements Lynton. If a farmer can sell his milk
to consumers, where is the inspection by the milk authority.

> >> Paleo people had manners, too.
>
I didn't say this (I believe these were your words)

> What kind of manners, though?  (And how do you know?)
>
As I said, I didn't say this.

> >Humans get their calories from carbohydrate foods in the first
> >instance (i.e. foods containing simple sugars). Meat (i.e. the
> >saturated fat in meat) is neither healthy for the human system
> >and nor is it a good source of energy.
>
> If this paragraph sums up your "knowledge" of human nutrition, then you
> obviously know little about where humans can get their calories from, let
> alone what is healthy for humans to eat.
>
Quite the opposite Lynton, If you disagree with what I said (which you
obviously do), I would suggest that you do some serious research on
the subject.

> >You obviously have no experience here whatsoever..or were fasting with
> >other juices instead of simple water. Fasting does not make you
> >hungry (your presumption) for anything..if done properly it makes
> >you hungry for nothing. IOW, you wonder after a couple of weeks
> >why you ever ate at all. What it does do (if you do it properly)
> >is sharpen your senses to accept and enjoy tastes you have never
> >tasted before..or rejected before. This thus aids in converting
> >to raw. If somebody decides after a fast to eat the way they
> >did before then that is their own personal decision. The fast will
> >have at least resulted in a detox..which is always beneficial.
> >As to malnourished people...a two week fast will certainly help
> >them to detox their eating mistakes and is thus still healthier
> >than continuing to eat as before.
>
> I must protest the perpretation of this ignorance.  It is relatively easy to
> adjust one's diet in a healthy direction.  (Notice I said healthy: this does
> NOT necessarily imply RAW !).
>
If it is relatively easy, then why are over 50% of U.S. Americans
obese? As to the difference between cooked and raw, getting people to
turn completely raw is extremely difficult in most instances. But a
healthy cooked diet as opposed to raw I have yet to see. Perhaps you
could explain to me (us) the nutritional advantages of cooking
anything. The only advantage that I know of is that cooking often
neutralises toxins in foods which we probably shouldn't be eating
anyway.

Alan