> "Mike Raiti"
> >Bruce

> >Howell's "research" is as flawed as "Pottenger's
> >Cats" and the nonsense peddled by Aajonus.
>
> What is wrong with Pottenger's Cats?  I am a little familiar with
> what he did.  I have been corresponding with a raw foodist who has
> used Pottenger's Cat to support his view.  I would like to know your
> thought about it.

Here is a long article critiquing raw food theorists like
Howell, Kouchakoff, Pottenger, Burger, and others.
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1a.shtml

My own criticisms of the Pottenger Study:

1. He confined the cats in cages in a lab. He didn't let
them go outside to hunt, eat grass, breathe fresh air...
He forced them to live an unnatural lifestyle.

2. He performed a harmful surgery (adrenalectomy) on some
or all of the cats. He didn't use healthy cats.

3. He only tested 100% raw vs 100% cooked. We would get a
more meaningful result (for humans, at least) by testing,
say, 75-80% raw vs 75-80% cooked.

4. He fed cats an unnatural diet, including cod liver
oil, and another food that I'm not allowed to name on
this list, by orders of the moderator/s.

5. Humans aren't cats. We have cooked food regularly
for 125K yrs and sporadically for 500K-1.5M yrs. We
have probably adapted more to cooked food.

6. Cod liver oil has been linked to cancer, sterility,
brain damage, and death. Neither cats nor humans should
need CLO if they eat organ meats, eggs, or fish.

Maybe Pottenger undermined the health of the cats due
to the above factors. Perhaps if someone did another
study correcting for these problems, and those noted
at Beyond Vegetarianism, the cats would have thrived.

The following link also refutes recent posts that said
Tasmanian Aborigines stopped using fire 2,500 yrs ago.
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-3e.shtml#aborigines