Hi Kirt !
K : 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.
F :  Since instinctive nutrition is nothing more than our original
> nutrition  (not only our direct ancestors fed on it for millions of
> years, but also all life forms have relied upon it since the beggining
> of life) it can hardly be compared to an addiction. It is rather the quite
> recent neolithic cooked nutrition based on cereal grains and dairy
products
> which is an addiction, as shown specialy by Dohan T. C., "Schisophrenia
and
> Neuroactives  Peptides from Food" in the Lancet, May 19 - 1979 and by "
The
> origins of agriculture a biological perspective and a new hypothesis" by
> Wadley G: & Martin A, Department of Zoology, University of Melbourne. Ïn
> Australian Biologist 6: 96 - 105, June 1993
> http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/EPM/papers/GW_paper.html.
> It springs from this fact that a return to the original nutrition is not
> easy, in the same sense it's uneasy to abandon crack. Many guys fall back
> after thinking and boasting enthousiasticaly they've found the ultimate
 truth and nutrition.

F : > 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.
K : Yes, my understanding is that there are some strange goings on in Europe
> > regarding prosecuting "cults".
F : Witch hunting is not over here, though we have recently stopped to burn
> them alive.
>
 F : > 2. I doubt he didn't have any heather system in his farm, since the
> > > thermometer may sometimes go down to minus 15 C here in winter.
K : 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.
F : A remote point. Severen must be wrong, since frozen food is avoided by
> Burger...
>
F : > 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.
K : 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"?
F : Yes, a hedge topic. The whole subject isn't well documented since it is
> difficult to know exactly when and where mankind began to use the fire for
> cooking foodstuffs. I just mean that instincto writings aren't n
dogmaticaly
> saying what you pretend they are saying. There'a a dense fog on this aeria
> and we are aware of this.
 K :  In any case, I have an instincto "chapbook" in English that mentions
> the10,000 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.
F : There must have been a broad range of datations depending on location
> and climate and it is probable that some remote hunters-gatherers remained
> untouched by the cooking addiction until some few thousand years ago.
>
> F : > 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.
K : 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.
F : Maybe. But is there any ideal standart for results ?

F :  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 ?
K : Fermentation as occurs in vinegars, nutcheeses, etc. were what I was
>  referring to. I prefer wine myself.
F : Thanks to specify.

 F :  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.
K : Is there a list of cooked foods that Burger considers non-toxic?
F :  Jean-Louis Tu has one on this site (see my original post).
K : 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.

F :  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.
 K :  Sounds like an ideal situation, unless, of course, some cooked foods
> are actually beneficial to health.
 F : It remains to be proved that havoc among finely tuned biochemical
 process could be beneficial.

F :  He told us almost exactly what you say about a contingent minimum
adaptation to
>   some processed food, probably for some folks at least.
K : When did he tell you this?
F : At least twice in 1987 and latter at Montramé on his public course.

 F : > 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.
 K : Yeah, I would agree--in the beginning. In my expereince it gets as
> boring as most any regime in the longterm.
 F : It may get boring if one doesn't have an broad choice for practical
> reaseons or for intellectually or culturaly exluding some categories of
> food. But if one
> open his mind to test new foodstuffs on every occasion, specialy when
> travelling, one may discover very often new tastes and get much more
eating
> pleasure than what is the case with cooked and mixed food. Furthermore, a
> single type of foodstuff may be very different according to its maturation
> state, or even fermented state... A durian or a cempedak for instance, may
> taste extremely different of another durian or cempedak and when I'm in
South East
> Asia during the season, I like to feed almost exclusively on durian
without ever getting
> bored. Every specimen is a discovery and a marvelleous pleasure to eat.
>
> K : 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?
 F : No, I do not hang out with instinctos. All my familly and all my
> friends, except a very few ones, eat cooked food. It was hard at the
> beggining, but now I have lost allmost all kinda attraction for cooked
> stuffs. Nevertheless, I might go back one day to cooked nutrition for
social
> or practical reasons, maybe tomorrow or in 20 years from now. One must
feel
> free, , cooked recipes and mixtures may without feeling locked up into a
system.
> Of coursealso taste good, otherwise they
> would be purposeless. We can't get the butter, the money of
> the butter and eat the butter. But all togheter, I have much more pleasure
to
 eat now than before.

 F :> 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.
K : Perhaps the smoking obsession is being replaced by the instincto purity
> > obsession. There are important differences, but important similarities
as
> > well.
 F : If you like to put it that way...

 F : > 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...)
K : 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!
 F : I would and I will, I just didn't take the time. The generaly accepted
> range in the litterature for the mastering of the fire is  between 500 000
> and 350 000 years ago .
 450 000 years ago appeared the first known human disease, "pyorrhée
> alveolaire"(in French), followed by malaria, "meningiome", syphilis and
then
> "actinomycose" 35000 years ago. For those who read French, an abstract can
> be found at www.geocities.com/HotSprings/7627/nosancetres.html. I
> didn't find the original article on the web, but I'll get it for you soon.

 F : > 7. I would rather write: according to instincto empirical findings
and
> >  theory.
 K : 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.
 F : No comment.

F : > 8. Is really the whole scene at the Chateau very cult-like?
K : Yeah.
F : No.
F : > 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.
K : 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?
 F : In 1987, 1988, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995 and 2001, each time for about a
> week. As for Burger "sales pitch", it seems he isn't a succesfull
salesman.

 F : > 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.
K : 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.
 F : Thank you.
> Would you, please, back your reference to disease states of  long-term
> instinctos ?
> The ones I know here in Europe are in good healt, except some cases who
were
> lost causes anyway had they gone on with cooked nutrition. Many cases of
> very spectacular improvements have been recorded and published in
"Instincto
> Magazine" and former "Orkoscopie". Of course there are some failures,
> but not so many as with conventionnal ways of healing, which had allready
> failed in these cases anyway. Eating instinctivelyonly original
unprocessed
> food isn't easy and many people fail, specially if they feel compeled  by
their healt problems.
Here in Switzerland are the
> most long-term instinctos, among them the ones who have started and
> developped the whole idea along with Burger: All of them are very well.
The treatment
> Burger gave to his wife concerns only their private live, unless you speak
> of medical treatment.
>
 F : > 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.
 K : Interesting, but the list is much larger than malaria at this point.
How
> has Burger responded from jail?
 F : What do you mean ? He wasn't in jail at the time if it's what you mean.
> Sorry about my poor understanding of English.
> Again, please back up your comment about "the much larger list".
>
 F : > 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 ?
K : 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?
>
 F : The instincto does not claim anything, as far as I know. Some persons
> may claim something, but not the "instincto" itself.
> Trichinosis is very dangerous. To my ¨knowledge it may be contracted with
> pork, wild boar (and perhaps other animals) having access to corn fields,
> garbage or processed food. That's one of the reasons why we are carefull
> with meat, and eat only the meat of animals with no access to those food.
> In case of doubt, another precaution may be to have your meat checked for.
I
> don't know how Americans instinctos are aware and carefull about it, but
here in Europe
> I've never heard of any case of trichinosis among us, though there might
be
> some cases unknown to me.

 F : > 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.
K : 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?
 F : Sorry, what means "the BV piece" ?

 K : 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.
F : One wouldn't quote references which don't support his own wiews, would
he ?
> If agriculture was the result of large scale cooking practices, the
dividing
> lines may be almost superimposed.

F :> 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.
 K :  OK. At what point does soaking become germination? This seems like a
>  nitpick. But if rice is OK, why not.....fill in the blank.....?
 F : Very well documented exerimental results of  Dr. Jean Seignalet are
> related in his book " L'alimentation ou la troisième medecine" (editions
> Guibert,1977) and confirm experiments of Burger and others. We don't know
> yet why, but we know that cereals have been much the target of artificial
> selection and mutations. Since mutations happen at random, it may well be
> that the ones affecting wheat are more dangerous than the ones happened to
> rice. (A whole line of articles of Seignalet in French as well as in
English
> can be found on the web - I tried to print here the links but it didn't
work
> and I gave up. Anyway his name will easily lead to his litterature.)
>
F : > 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.

 F : > 12. Of course instinctos also die and I never thought I will get
 immortal...
K : 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.
F : Are there such cases ? I know many persons saying they eat "instincto",
but in fact they do not do it properly anyway. It may sound an good excuse,
but till we get controled experiments, there ain't no way to know.
 F : 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.
K : Unfalsifiable, and besides, if true, it means that the whole instincto
detoxing schpeil is VERY limited.
F : If some toxins can be eliminated, it doesn't mean all will be and that
damage done can necessarilly be totally repaired.
>
 F :  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 ! ).
K : 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.
F : Yes. I saw Jean-Marie Burger and Nathalie Burger two months ago. They
> are bright, very healty and well built. Also near from here there is
couple
> eating "instincto" since the 60s for him and the 70s for her. Their two
> kids, instinctos from birth, are fine and very well grown up.
> Nicole Burger migth have died of cancer much earlier if she had gone on
with
> cooked food. Who knows ? If her case is not a good point for the instincto
> theory, nor it is a valid point to oppose that theory. Nothing is proved
by
> a single case, specialy when mortality by cancer takes such a huge toll on
> cooked food eaters. And as the case of the defenders of  Saltspring Island
> forests shows ( www.savesaltspring.com), beeing in jail doesn't prove you
> are a liar, a dangerous person or whatsoever neither.

 F : > 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 !
 K : No, you can't. That's what I mean by unfalsifiable.
 F : Yes, I know and that's why we hope some serious research will be done
> one day, aimed to investigate, prove or disprove  Burger's theories and
> hypotesis. Untill now the target has only been his personnal behavior, whi
ch
> has nothing to do with his revolutionary theories.

 F : > 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.
K : Uh-huh. Perhaps you have good knowledge of it and can enligten us?
F : Some knowledge. I'll enlight you about that latter on, there's allready
 sufficient material to talk about for today ! The sun shines here and I'd
 like to take a walk.
>
 F : > 17. Burger's personality is the target of French journalists,
administration and justice.
 K : It may also be his behavior.
 F : Sure. His behavior must spring out from his personnality, I guess.

F : > 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.
 K :  The "common folk" no doubt ?
 F :  Sorry about using these words, it seems in English they don't have
> exactly the same meaning as in my mother thonge and what I meant.
>
 F : > I do not know whether there is real Justice and I doubt that
> Justice can be done by humans beings.
 K : Now you Gag me.
 F : Yes, I do !
 F :> > It is rather vengeance.
 K : Spare me, please. ;) Besides, vengence it pretty pre-fire paleo, no? ;)
 F : OK, I will since it looks too disturbing to you... /
> Sure, it is a thing of the long gone past, I was only joking. Our modern
> world is so tolerant, peacefull and open-minded to new ideas !

F : > ...15 years of prison is quite cheap for I guy who suggest a
>  theory that might save the whole planet.
 K :> Boy, you got it bad and that ain't good. ;)
 F : Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Don't you know I'm a joker ?
 K : 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.
F : Still I have to learn what's a BV piece as well as a lot more things.
K : Well, sorry I missed you the first time around. I guess we'll see if you
> > have a sense of humor or not. ;)
F : Do not be sorry, I expected that. /  Well, I hope I have some !
K :> Cheers,
> > Kirt
F : Same,
> Francois
> >
>
>