Alan,
Some quick replies,
> What
> they fail to tell you is that almost every cow is treated with
> antibiotics, for example, because they get sore teats from the milking
> machines (known as mastitis).
Mastitis doesn't come from the milking machines.
Any of us who have nursed our children, or who have worked on dairy farms,
or who have pets, can tell you that mastitis comes from the glands becoming
engorged with milk. This happens for a variety of reasons, some of them
completely natural.
> 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.
> It is certainly true (and nobody
> can deny this) that early man never attempted to suck the teats
> of any wild animal (and lived to tell the tale). ;-)
Well, you're wrong here. As a matter of fact, in the movie "KingPin" (by
the brothers that made "Something About Mary") Woody Harrelson does, in
fact, attempt to do this, and does indeed live to tell the tale. I
recommend seeing this scene.
But seriously, why is this argument always made in this way? Who said we'd
have to actually suck the teats of the animal, in order to get the milk? Do
you eat eggs? Do you suck the egg out of the chicken? Or suck the carrot
right up out of
the dirt? What happened to using hands? Paleo people had manners, too.
> The dairy industry also claims that cowmilk is necessary for
> the protein and hence the growth of children (not to mention strong
> healthy bones). If this is the case, why do babies wean off of milk
> (they instinctively reject it...mother's milk.. after a few years)
Why are you comparing mother's milk and cow's milk? I thought you've
stressed that they are different foods.
> and why does no other mammal drink milk after weaning off
My cat LOVES milk. At one point we had ten cats at once, and they ALL loved
milk. Our pigs loved milk. Our baby goats drank cow's milk. Our dogs love
milk. Our raccoon drank milk.
> and why
> are the strongest creatures with the heaviest bones on this earth
> (elephants, buffalo, gorillas) strict vegetarians?
First of all, they're not. And second of all, most of us are humans, we're
not any of
those other things you named, and so we don't find it especially consistent
with being humans to spend all our waking hours sitting there eating, in
order to get in a day's calories.
> 2. Eating is not only a nutritional but also a sensual thing. By
> fasting you prepare your body for a raw diet to which you are
> unaccustomed. After a two week fast (on water only) you will eat
> almost anything with relish and it thus makes it easier to make
> the switch.
It is precisely because of the fact that after a fast a person wants to eat
anything and everything in site, that it could possibly make it EXCEEDINGLY
difficult to restrict one's diet to all raw only. It is VERY hard, after a
fast, to refrain from eating ANYTHING. I wouldn't want Axel or anyone else
to get the wrong idea and think that fasting will make it easier to eat all
raw. In fact it may very, very conceivably, make life much more difficult.
Especially if there is a possibility that one is malnourished to begin
with.
> By eating high quality (i.e. organically
> grown and not treated with any chemicals whatsoever) from the
> start you quickly learn by taste alone to differentiate between
> good and bad quality produce.
Well, that and a refractometer. =:o
> Many report that a switchover without
> fasting can make you "backfire better than a retro-rocket". This is
> because the bacterial flora in the intestines need quite a while to
> adjust to the new foods. Fasting dramatically reduces the time needed
> for the bacteria to adjust but you still may experience at least a
> week or two of flatulence.
The operative words here are "at least."
Realize that you are talking to a potentially VERY wide audience, with your
statements here.
Realize also that every person's digestive system is different. You have no
way of knowing what sort of digestive system might be lurking on this list,
reading your statements, or what sort might look in the archives five years
from now, and assume that because of your air of certainty you actually
know enough to make a statement like that, that could directly impact their
health.
Also realize that there are MANY people, the majority of people, in fact,
for whom a 100% raw diet, whether coming after a fast or not, is VERY
difficult, if not downright dangerous, because of the huge amount of fiber
to which they are unaccustomed.
There are also plenty of other reasons that make a raw diet either
difficult, dangerous, impossible, or prohibitive. A raw diet is not for
everybody, and a fast doesn't change that.
> The best advice here is "do not attempt
> to eat any of the veggies that you used to cook raw" (with the
> exception of most root veggies other than potatoes).
What? Was there a typo in this, or am I missing something?
Love Liza
--
[log in to unmask] (Liza May)
|
