Hi Francious,

> Dear Kirt,=20
> Some time ago I sent you this mail. Did you get it  ? I wonder, because =
> there was no reply from you. If you have any comments, I'll be glad.=20
> Kind regards,

I don't have it on my home computer, but some mail got lost while traveling
over the Christmas/New Year's  holiday, so perhaps that is where it ended
up. Sorry you were left in the lurch.

> If G.C Burger and Bruno Comby are a bit too optimistic about the healing =
> power of our organisms once the intake of Neolithic cooked food has been =
> abandoned, it seems to me that you are too pessimistic about it. It =
> looks like their goal is selling Burger's theory and that yours is to =
> appear objective...

Yeah, I think it is oversold. Objective? I guess the goal was simply to have
an outside view.  If you want to find out about crack, talk to an ex-addict
to get another point of view. ;)

> Now, since here in Europe we are more and more attacked and considered =
> as a sect of indoctrinated fanatics led by "Burger the Guru", it may be =
> good for us that you, as well as many other guys eating instinctively, =
> somehow criticise the theory while explaining it.

Yes, my understanding is that there are some strange goings on in Europe
regarding prosecuting "cults".

> 1. Burger is not French but Swiss.

Yes, you are right. Thanks for the correction!

> 2. I doubt he didn't have any heather system in his farm, since the =
> thermometer may sometimes go down to minus 15=B0C here in winter.

A fireplace, you mean? Not sure. I, of course, wasn't there. ;) I was
paraphrasing information from Severen Schaeffer's book., which claimed
"living without..heating". Perhaps that is wrong.

> 3. He doesn't say that cooking has been used only for 10000 years, but =
> he understands that large scale cooking could only take place once we =
> manufactured pottery, in the Neolithic. Before, foodstuffs could only be =
> grilled, and Burger writes and also told us he supposes we started to =
> experiment this quite soon since we mastered the fire, 350000 to 500000 =
> years ago.

The dating of cooking fires is certainly a hedge topic. What does widespread
mean? Does "experimenting" mean much as far as genetic adaptation for a
species goes? Only grilling? Sounds like how meat is often cooked, no? Is
"neolithic" 10,000 years ago? 15,000? 18,000? 3,000? When was farming
"widespread"?

In any case, I have an instincto "chapbook" in English that mentions the
10,000 year figure and Bruno's book cites a reference of fecal analysis at
10,000 years supposedly showing nothing cooked. Since you have probably read
Burger's original stuff, I am indebted to you for your take on his take of
the cooking question.

> 4. He states that practising a perfect raw instinctive nutrition is =
> impossible in our civilised world and that we can only try to approach =
> this ideal, without ever reaching it. He totally agrees with you on this =
> point as well as on the former one, so it'd be fair to give it to him.

I don't remember taking it away, except that the above reasoning is often
used as the unfalsifiable excuse for any less-than-ideal results for
instinctive eaters.

> 5. Fermenting is an original process, which occurs naturally in overripe =
> fruits and is by no means a method of denaturing food. As a matter of =
> fact, some animals as well as most instinctos are very fond of partially =
> fermented fruits. Never tried it ?

Fermentation as occurs in vinegars, nutcheeses, etc. were what I was
referring to. I prefer wine myself. ;)

> 6. Burger doesn't pretend that every cooked food is toxic. What he says =
> is : we have no proof that it is not noxious and that any instinctive =
> stop with it occurs when the proper amount has been eaten - by the way, =
> he also agrees that the same problem happens with modern artificially =
> selected fruits & meat.

Is there a list of cooked foods that Burger considers non-toxic? If the
instincto diet denies all cooked food because it is likely to be "noxious",
then I can find little practical difference. But I appreciate the different
slant you cast on the matter.

> He suspects that cooked food (or at least some =
> cooked food) is, along with milk and cereals, the cause of many health =
> problems and since we ignore exactly which foodstuffs, if not all =
> processed ones, are responsible of these problems, it is safer to avoid =
> them all and eat as much as possible only raw original food.

Sounds like an ideal situation, unless, of course, some cooked foods are
actually beneficial to health.

> He told us =
> almost exactly what you say about a contingent minimum adaptation to =
> some processed food, probably for some folks at least.

When did he tell you this?

> It is quite possible that some food cooked at low =
> temperature won't make any health problems - I mean long-term problems, =
> not only short-term ones. But I do not see any interest in cooking food =
> at low temperature, since the pleasure of eating instinctively raw =
> original foodstuffs is much greater that what we could ever obtain with =
> a diet.

Yeah, I would agree--in the beginning. In my expereince it gets as boring as
most any regime in the longterm. I remember my first "mix" after several
years of instincto (romaine and cherry tomatoes) with great delight. Yeah,
they woulda tasted nice in sequence but "wow" they were much more delightful
together. Same for my first seared steak (totally raw inside). Perhaps you
don't see any interest in cooking because you hang out with instinctos, not
ex-instinctos? ;)

> For most people, long-term =
> instinctive nutrition is easy only as long as you do it without =
> exceptions. It's like if you quit smoking: you better not smoke again a =
> single cigarette if you don't want to start smoking again.

Perhaps the smoking obsession is being replaced by the instincto purity
obsession. There are important differences, but important similarities as
well.

> Also, there is a recent article in the very official French "Impact =
> Medecin Hebdo" of February 2, 1996 reporting that the first 4 known =
> human diseases appeared simultaneously with the mastering of the fire. =
> But sure, they didn't bother to cook at low temperature...)

Sounds fascinating. How did they calculate and define the "mastering of
fire"? Which diseases? Hell, you could ditch the rest of this dialogue and
tell us all about this research!

> 7. I would rather write: according to instincto empirical findings and =
> theory.

I hear you, and you are more than welcome to. I'll try to remind you of the
"other instincto emperical findings" when it seems appropriate. ;)

> 8. Is really the whole scene at the Chateau very cult-like?

Yeah.

> I've been =
> several times there and I never saw any form of cult. What I found there =
> was rather some common people as well as some very brilliant persons. Of =
> course, like everywhere, common people have a propensity to be dogmatic =
> and tend to understand more than what Burger says, taking for the =
> ultimate truth what he presents as hypothesis.

You lost me here. The "common people"? And I think you have to admit that
Burger doesn't much talk about "hypothesis" when he is on his sales pitch.

When were you there? For how long?

> Most people need solid =
> ground to believe, not a theory to be put into questioning every day and =
> every hour as Burger strongly recommended. He took long diatribes to =
> explain us that what he says is only a theoretical model, that a theory =
> is never the ultimate truth but a temporary explanation to be modified =
> or abandoned in the future, once we have more facts and understanding of =
> these facts.

I'm sure he was the perfect scientist as regards fact and theory. ;) If he
wants to abandon something in the future, he might start with meta, or
explain the disease states of some long-term instinctos, or his treatment of
his wife. Methinks you are almost a "common person" tending to understand
more than what Burger says. ;)

> 9. In 1987, Burger warned us that instinctos could contract MALARIA and =
> would not self-heal with instinctive nutrition. In case of malaria, he =
> said, we better immediately take chloroquin. Bruno Comby apparently =
> ignored this fact: in a discussion group some years latter, someone =
> asked him if there was any diseases which couldn't be healed with =
> instinctive nutrition. I answered "malaria" and he was really surprised, =
> disagreeing with me.=20

Interesting, but the list is much larger than malaria at this point. How has
Burger responded from jail?

> 10. In 15 years of instinctive nutrition, I never got any parasite. I =
> heard of some instinctos getting taenia. I consider it as a risk, a =
> remote risk if you don't eat meat of animals having access to garbage, =
> human crops such as corn, or processed food leftovers. But anyway, since =
> drugs are available against most parasites, what is the problem ?

The problem is the instincto claim that parasites are beneficial, when there
should be more of a balance. In decades of "normal" nutrition, most people
don't get parasites. I never (knowingly got a parasite, raw or other wise,
either). But Ano, a longterm instincto, almost died of trichinosis. He
doesn't much seem to be bothered by that fact but I sure learned from it.
Does it resonate at all for you?

> 11. Corn and cereals grains, specially wheat, shall better be avoided. =
> The reason for it was initially unknown, thought artificial selection =
> inducing mutations was suspected. The discovery was empirical, as it was =
> with milk.

Meaning Burger's big reaction to milk? That's not a discovery for humankind
but an example of Burger's metabolism at that point in time, if we are to
believe the hyperbole. But anyway, are you just starting to rehash some
instincto theory here or did I get something wrong in the BV piece? The
reference stuff I snipped below seems to support most paleodiets, not just
the unmixed, raw, version. Indeed, it doesn't even support instincto as much
as a cooked paleodiet since it relies on argiculture as the dividing line,
not cooking.

> Rice, for instance, does not seem to give any troubles. But you don't =
> need to germinate it to eat it, unlike what you write. It is hard when =
> dry, so you can soak it in water and eat it when it is soft and tasty as =
> you like.

OK. At what point does soaking become germination? This seems like a
nitpick. But if rice is OK, why not.....fill in the blank.....?

> By the way, the choice of instinctive food is unlimited: =
> anything is edible in any state as long as you like it and the thing is =
> original and unprocessed.

Unlimited? I assume you are not speaking mathematically. ;)

> 12. Of course instinctos also die and I never thought I will get =
> immortal...

You are evading the issue. Longterm instinctos getting sick and/or dying at
young ages has nothing whatsoever to do with immortality, and neither does
my reporting of the same.

>Everyone knows that some pesticides and other stuff such as =
> asbestos fibres, air pollution or exposure to high levels of =
> radioactivity may trigger a cancer 20, 30 or more years latter. Maybe =
> wheat and dairy products too, whatever your diet is at the time.

Unfalsifiable, and besides, if true, it means that the whole instincto
detoxing schpeil is VERY limited.

> Instinctive nutrition is not a bullet-proof armour against cancer: it =
> only diminishes your chances of being struck by diseases due to =
> processed food, not eliminating them totally if you ever ate that kind =
> of stuff ( that's only logical reasoning ! ).

I'll wait for the stats on instincto-from-birth folks and then make up my
mind. In the meantime, the "father" of instincto is in jail for various
charges, the "mother" of instincto died early of cancer. Perhaps you can
give us an update on their offspring, including a couple instinctos from
birth.

> Many living instinctos =
> could be dead today if they had gone on with processed food. Who knows ? =
> I could even be dead myself, or at least sick or looking older, but that =
> I can't prove, of course !

No, you can't. That's what I mean by unfalsifiable.

> 14. Burger's metasexuality theory is another subject, a subject on which =
> instinctos disagree. I think it'd be better not to write comments about =
> it without a good knowledge of it.=20

Uh-huh. Perhaps you have good knowledge of it and can enligten us?

> 17. Burger's personality is the target of French journalists, =
> administration and justice.

It may also be his behavior.

> Whether the charges against him are =
> groundless or not is an issue which doesn't concern his theories. These =
> theories go very much beyond the nutrition problems and that's where it =
> becomes really interesting, controversial and... disturbing for many =
> persons.

The "common folk" no doubt? ;)

> I do not know whether there is real Justice and I doubt that =
> Justice can be done by humans beings.

Now you Gag me. ;)

> It is rather vengeance.

Spare me, please. ;) Besides, vengence it pretty pre-fire paleo, no? ;)

> ...15 years of prison is quite cheap for I guy who suggest a =
> theory that might save the whole planet.          =20

Boy, you got it bad and that ain't good. ;)

Seriously, you started out with some very interesting perspectives on the BV
piece and segued into the silly generic/personal arguments and for the grand
finale you try to make Burger out as the mis-understood giant among vengeful
mortals.

Well, sorry I missed you the first time around. I guess we'll see if you
have a sense of humor or not. ;)

Cheers,
Kirt