A lurker sent me the question/opinion at the bottom of this mail and I feel that I want to send my points of view to the list too.

> > Fredrik wrote:
> > > Are you afraid of raw dairy, Eva?
Eva wróte:
> > Afraid is not the correct word. During the evolutionary important time,
> > miljons of years when our body and our nutritional needs were formed by
what
> > was available for prehumans and humans there was no milk to be consumed
> > except what you would get from your mother during the 3-5 first years of
> > life. This means milk is not paleo food.
> >
> > Evolution shaped our needs to be suitable to what there was to get and
very
> > likely formed the body to consider all other stuff (like non human milk,
for
> > instance) as foreign substances. So, it does not matter if you want to
drink
> > it pasteurized or raw. It has different negative consequences. <...>

The answer above is really all there is to it so I let it stay where it is.

Paletolithic time was 2.300000 million years, that is 92000 generations
during which our body developed to be what it is and to need the conditions
that were present at that time. The conditions that were present during
those 92000 generations is what we need and our body does not need us to add
anything more. What I meant with negative consequences with raw milk was
mainly the risk of tuberculosis, a manslaughter all over the world. Those
that work with cows are ususally resistant to what causes TBC but most
people don't work with cows.

Milk for humans or for cows has developed to be perfect for helping a small
shivering little creature to double its size in a short time. Only such
creatures need such a product and its contents, aiming to double the size of
those who eat it and for that reason it is not suitable for those that are
fully grown. Besides that, cows milk ought to have some component that was
good for a stomach that is meant to be ruminant. Peoples stomachs are not.

When agriculture started about 10000 years ago people kept animals for the
meat and only eventually started drinking the milk. Those 400 generations
since agriculture begun is but a wink in the eye of evolution.

Humans that eat grains and milk build up illnesses that hit them not in an
old age but starting early. Autopsies show that people eating western style
have degenerativ diseases before being teenagers. And it gets worse, causing
pain and money to the individual who gets sick and to the society that has
to take care of the sick.

There is a survey from Kampala, Uganda (author Muwazi-44) from 1942 in which
noone of the patient at the neurological department of the hospital had had
a stroke. 1924, 11% of the patients were there on account of stroke
(Hutton-56) and in 1977 as many as 34 % were stroke patients
(Billinghurst-70) The culprit is unquestionable high blood pressure due to
change into western eating patterns.

As long as what you do does not interfere with your ability to have children
it will not be subjected to evolutionary pressure. Of course! Nature does
not care one bit if you get a heart attack when you are 50 years old because
at that time your children are old enough to take care of themselves and
probably have children of their own. So, only those individuals who died
before they had their own children and those that did not get any children
because they were wrongly fed were subjected to evolutionary pressure. Those
that got ill from dairy and grains and other things only after they had
shown evolutionary fitness, that is having children, could keep on passing
their genes to new generations. That is why milk and grains remain a threat
to our health.
Eva



> Hi Eva,
>
> I was wondering if you could elaborate on some of the "different negative
> consequences" that raw milk has, vs. pasteurized homogenized adulterated
> milk.  Organic and grass-fed milk would be ideal.  Note: most milk gets
> skimmed, even "whole milk".  So we must add back raw cream to match what
> was originally there.  Reduced-fat foods definite cause health problems.
> Think lean meat and egg whites.
>
> It seems raw butter would be least likely to cause consequences, due to
> the virtual absence of lactose, casein, opioid peptides, and excessive
> calcium.  Isolated healthy tribes used raw dairy extensively.  Usually,
> they fermented it to make cheese, sour cream, yogurt, cultured butter...
>
> Also, paleolithic humans would have consumed some milk inadvertently.
> If they killed a lactating female animal, they would consume the milk
> along with the meat.  Nothing is created or destroyed, and they ate the
> whole animal (bones, entrails, and so forth).
>
> If people began consuming dairy products 10-12 thousand years ago, and
> relied on it as a staple in their diets, this creates an evolutionary
> pressure.  Those who could not adapt would have become extinct.  The
> notion that evolution takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years
> is bogus.  A similar evolutionary pressure was put in place when they
> began pasteurizing milk.  Those who can't adapt will eventually become
> extinct if they consume pasteurized dairy.
>
> Since pasteurization only began a little over a hundred years ago, we
> couldn't have adapted very much in that time.  But various races that
> depended on raw milk for more than 1000 years (50 generations) would
> definitely have adapted, mutated, or evolved to thrive on it.
>
> Regards,
> C
>