> >And if both were cooked,
> > the degeneration was much worse, and the cats could no
> > longer reproduce by the third generation.
>
>
> I believe that these cats were surgically maimed, were they
> not? He removed the adrenal glands, and it was these cats
> who were unable to digest food properly.

In several years of hearing people talk about the
pottenger cats, I have never heard that. I forwarded
a note to some people more familiar with the study
and will get back with you when I hear something.

> Normal cats have no
> trouble with cooked meat.

Cats, like humans, can digest cooked meat.
However, when they do so, they force extra
work onto their pancreas to digest the food.
As Dr. Howell pointed out in his book,
Enzyme Nutrition, the pancreas of a domestic
cat is much larger than the pancreas of a
cat eating nothing but its natural raw diet.
When the pancreas is forced to work overtime
doing digestion of food, it has less energy
to make the enzymes used to repair the body.

This is why animals in the wild rarely develop
disease, but the animals, cats included,
that live off the scraps of man's table often
develop the same diseases of man.

There are a large number of people that
only feed their animals raw food because
of this fact. There is a great deal of information
on the Net about this, too.

Dr. Edward Howell:

When dogs and cats eat their natural raw, carnivorous diet, there are no
enzymes in the saliva. But when dogs are fed on a high carbohydrate,
heat-treated diet, enzymes show up in the saliva within about a week...


> I have never heard of anyone replicating the cat experiment.
> It is not science. Not yet anyway.

It is not science in that nobody funded Mr. Pottenger,
so therefore he didn't have to alter his results for
anyone.

Jay