Perhaps I should leave this topic alone and move on, as Dr Tony Jay suggests, but it's such an important topic with so many unresolved questions, I don't see why I should move on.
Moving on is what Tony Jay appears to have done when is own experiments with animals produced the opposite effect in human trials. I pointed out that this was a wonderful opportunity to conduct further research to find out the reasons for the discrepancy, but apparently this was not done, no doubt because the funding was not available.
If there are more efficient methods of carrying out the initial research on animals, such as use of 'in vitrio assays', I would not argue against that. If Dr Tony Jay wishes to make the point that animal studies in general are not useful, and are also cruel, and should be banned, then that's another issue which could be discussed.
Unfortunately, I find Dr Tony Jay's posts rather confusing from a logical and objective perspective. He reminds me of the situation of someone responding to a criticism of a photograph on this website. I've contributed to this site for many years, and quite often have observed angry responses from people submitting a photo for criticism, when someone posts a legitimate point of criticism which is not in praise.
I understand this type of response, but I don't condone it. The emphasis should always be on the reasoned articulation behind the criticism, rather than "I'm an experienced and professional photographer who's had photos accepted by magazines. How dare you criticise my photo! What do you know about photography?"
To get back to my original point that seems to have produced such an unreasoned and negative response from Dr Tony Jay, that fasting may have health benefits that can even cure cancer, according to studies on mice and rats, I agree that those results alone are not sufficient proof. I'm not silly. I do understand that any differences in genetic make-up and in existing medical/health conditions can affect the results, whether in mice or men. It's an enormously complex situation, which is a subject of continuing reasearch.
However, on the subject of fasting, we already have a huge history going back thousands of years, of people engaging in voluntary fasting. If we include involunatary fasting (due to droughts), the practice goes back millions of years.
I don't subscribe to the magical properties advertised by religions, although I do recognise that they might have a placebo effect. Buddhism, when stripped of all the magical mumbo jumbo, is one of the few religions (perhaps the only one) , which teaches certain basic principles which are in accord with modern science.
The Buddha is reported in the scriptures to have fasted to the point of almost total starvation, in his search for enlightenment. Fortunately, he realised he would die if he continued, so he adopted the 'middle way' of avoiding extremes. The Buddha supposedly lived to the age of 82. That extreme fasting did not appear to have had any serious, long-term effects. His middle way, with regard to eating, was just one meal per day, in the morning, which he considered to be very healthy, as a result of experiments on himself.
Interestingly, this was also the practice of the average, ancient Roman citizen, including members of the Roman army. One of the most successful empires in the history of mankind had a practice of eating just one meal a day. Doesn't that tell you something, Tony Jay?
Of course, you would probably counter, if you do respond to this post, that excessive indulgence in eating was a common occurrence in ancient Rome, which was even encouraged by the use of the 'vomitorium', in order to vomit and then continue eating.
This of course is a mistranslation of the word 'vomitorium', which you should know if you are a doctor familiar with Latin terms. A vomitorium is merely an exit to a building or enclosed space. Excessive eating did no doubt take place in ancient Rome, but probably only amongst the wealthy aristocrats who could afford lavish banquets.
In summary, test results for a new drug or procedure on animals are very provisional. But test results for fasting are not so provisional because of the long history of fasting in many cultures. It's simple not reasonable and rational to assume that the claimed health benefits of fasting are 'rubbish'. Don't you think if there were no health benefits, the practice of fasting would not have become a part of so many cultures throughout the ages. Don't you understand, if it were the case that actual harm resulted from fasting, the practice would not have continued. Do you think your distant ancestors were all stupid dopes?
You do understand, I hope, that the main reason why Muslims and Jews do not eat pork, is because pigs in ancient times were very susceptible to certain diseases that affected the people who ate the meat. This is no longer the case, but the tradition of abstaining from pork prevails.
It is reasonable to deduce that many ancient practices resulted in response by some chieftain, or his advisors, observing that harmful effects were taking place as a result of certain practices, and that such practices should be banned in the interests of the well-being of the population.
Fasting is not in this category. Harmful effects do not appear to be an issue, otherwise the practice throughout history would not have continued.
With regard to the latest research on the effects of (moderate) fasting on mice and rats, there are two major points to consider. First there are no harmful effects on humans to report throughout history, except with certain modern people who may have got themselves into serious trouble with their unnatural lifestyle and diet, and who already suffer from some sort of medical condition.
Secondly there are not only animal studies which show the benefits of fasting and/or a restricted diet, but many anecdotal studies from people who have tried it, including myself.
To dismiss such claims as 'rubbish', as you have done, sends a clear message to intelligent, thinking people, that you are a prisoner of your narrow interpretation of your own discipline and are unable to think outside of the box.
Sorry to be so blunt, but let the truth prevail.