| Line 151: |
Line 151: |
| | In addition to the aforementioned study testing kosher and non-kosher foods for toxicity levels, Macht developed evidence indicating that combining meat and milk tended to be more toxic than either foodstuff alone.<ref name=Macht4>David I. Macht, Medical Leaves 1940; 3:174-184</ref> In addition, he compared conventional animal slaughtering versus kosher slaughtering and determined that kosher slaughtering produced less toxic meat.<ref name=Macht4/> | | In addition to the aforementioned study testing kosher and non-kosher foods for toxicity levels, Macht developed evidence indicating that combining meat and milk tended to be more toxic than either foodstuff alone.<ref name=Macht4>David I. Macht, Medical Leaves 1940; 3:174-184</ref> In addition, he compared conventional animal slaughtering versus kosher slaughtering and determined that kosher slaughtering produced less toxic meat.<ref name=Macht4/> |
| | | | |
| − | A 1985 study by Nanji and French found that there was a significant correlation between cirrhosis and pork consumption (Macht claimed that swine was more toxic than the animal meat the Bible called clean).<ref name=Nanji>Nanji AA, and French SW. "[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2858627&dopt=Abstract Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis]." ''Lancet'' 1985 Mar 23, 1(8430):681-3. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref> Modern pork production methods are different from ancient methods of raising pigs, so the result of this study might be hard to apply to the ancients or those who raise pigs by [[organic farming]] methods, without the use of hormones or antiobiotics. | + | A 1985 study by Nanji and French found that there was a significant correlation between cirrhosis and pork consumption (Macht claimed that swine was more toxic than the animal meat the Bible called clean).<ref name=Nanji>Nanji AA, and French SW. "[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2858627&dopt=Abstract Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis]." ''Lancet'' 1985 Mar 23, 1(8430):681-3. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref> Modern pork production methods are different from ancient methods of raising pigs, so the result of this study might be hard to apply to the ancients or those who raise pigs by organic farming methods, without the use of hormones or antibiotics. |
| | | | |
| | Jane Cahill reported in ''Biblical Archaeological Review'' that the toilets of a Jewish household in [[Jerusalem]] were examined and no [[parasite]]s or [[infectious disease|infectious agents]] were found.<ref name=Cahill>[http://cojs.org/cojswiki/It_Had_to_Happen,_Jane_M._Cahill,_Karl_Reinhard,_David_Tarler_and_Peter_Warnock,_BAR_17:03,_May/Jun_1991. It had to happen, Scientist Examines Ancient Bathrooms of Romans 586 B.C.] by Jane Cahill and Peter Warnock. BAR May/June 1991</ref> | | Jane Cahill reported in ''Biblical Archaeological Review'' that the toilets of a Jewish household in [[Jerusalem]] were examined and no [[parasite]]s or [[infectious disease|infectious agents]] were found.<ref name=Cahill>[http://cojs.org/cojswiki/It_Had_to_Happen,_Jane_M._Cahill,_Karl_Reinhard,_David_Tarler_and_Peter_Warnock,_BAR_17:03,_May/Jun_1991. It had to happen, Scientist Examines Ancient Bathrooms of Romans 586 B.C.] by Jane Cahill and Peter Warnock. BAR May/June 1991</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | Today, some "alternative medicine" practitioners do not recommend pork to their patients and subscribed advisees. Their reasons include the possible content of hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides, and also the undiscriminating diet of the pig. Joseph Mercola, DO, who has a private practice in alternative general medicine, writes:{{cquote|Pigs are scavenger animals and will eat just about anything. Their appetite for less-than-wholesome foods makes pigs a breeding ground for potentially dangerous infections. Even cooking pork for long periods is not enough to kill many of the retroviruses and other parasites that many of them harbor.<ref name=Mercola>Mercola, Joseph, DO, ed. "[http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/12/are-there-deadly-superbugs-in-your-pork.aspx?source=nl Are There Deadly Superbugs In Your Pork]?" <http://www.mercola.com/>, July 12, 2008. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref>}} | + | Today, some "alternative medicine" practitioners do not recommend pork to their patients. Their reasons include the possible content of hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides, and also the undiscriminating diet of the pig. Joseph Mercola, DO, who has a private practice in alternative general medicine, writes:{{cquote|Pigs are scavenger animals and will eat just about anything. Their appetite for less-than-wholesome foods makes pigs a breeding ground for potentially dangerous infections. Even cooking pork for long periods is not enough to kill many of the retroviruses and other parasites that many of them harbor.<ref name=Mercola>Mercola, Joseph, DO, ed. "[http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/12/are-there-deadly-superbugs-in-your-pork.aspx?source=nl Are There Deadly Superbugs In Your Pork]?" <http://www.mercola.com/>, July 12, 2008. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref>}} |
| | | | |
| | Dr. Mercola does not even recommend pasture-raised pork, because wild boars will often infect herds of pork with [[Trichinella spiralis]] or other parasites.<ref name=Mercola/> | | Dr. Mercola does not even recommend pasture-raised pork, because wild boars will often infect herds of pork with [[Trichinella spiralis]] or other parasites.<ref name=Mercola/> |