> Denis :
> Actually the very fact that children presenting such symptoms were, under
> this protocole, kept out of the experiment, shows that Masai children are
> afflicted by such symptoms from time to time . The contrary would have been
> quite surprising....
Thanks for the precisions. I would like to add a few remarks on the
*Even Burger tells that we have to be cautious with domesticated,
selected mammals' meat. Would milk be so bad if it was only consumed
occasionally, when really attractive, and not by habit, as probably
the Masai do?
*Lactose is not a major problem, since pre-digested forms of dairy
exist: kefir, cheese.
*But lactose is not the only point: eating cheese doesn't solve the
problems of casein, betalactoglobulins...
*We must admit that "intolerances" for raw meat apparently do not
So, I concur that one should be extremely careful with dairy, but some
questions still need clarification:
*Is raw milk bad for everybody?
*Are some populations better adapted to dairy than others?
*What are the consequences of raw dairy on persons who do not show
signs of intolerance [NB: I know there are many dairy-related
diseases, but since pasteurized milk is cooked, the generalization to
raw milk is not obvious].
> In addition , you will probably concur with the idea that the absence of
> symptoms doesn't mean the absence of damageable nutritional practices ....
You are right, but any damageable nutritional practice should have
measurable consequences, like nervosity (higher tremor), weakened
immune system, higher occurrence of cancer, quicker ageing...