Hi Kirt,
>
> > F : (...) except maybe in some very ancient texts.

K : Ancient? ;)
F : Sorry: early.


K : (...)you and I both know that
> Burger (and probably you) think instincto is "right" and the rest, if not
> misguided, wrong.

F : Right or wrong? The theory is a theory and nothing more. Only
experiments can show whether it is right or wrong and that's why I started
to eat according to Burger's theory, for a few days, I thought first. I
wanted to know whether what he says is right or wrong. Some of his claims
quickly proved right. Some others appeared right with further
experimentation while some still unproved even now. A theory is here for us
to explain and understand the known facts. I must say that former theories
(for example Pasteur's theory) leave some facts unsatifactorily explained or
badly explained in complex ways. Burger's theories explain better
the known facts and in a more simple way. Furthermore, it
explains some facts which were before left whitout explanations. So, that's
just applying a universaly accepted way of advancing in scientific research
to swap an old theory for a new and more simple one (Occam's razor),
specialy if the new one fits better to the facts.
That said, eating raw or cooked has nothing to do with right or wrong, it is
just a personnal choice.


K : We have a lot of common ground if you are admitting that Burger is too
> optimistic.

F : Yes, but we disagree on the extend of this excess of optimism, don't we?


> > F : (...)leading to very slow adaptation.
>
K : Maybe, maybe not. It is an entirely open question methinks.

F : Yes, all questions are open. Just check the rate of genome changes per
millions of years.


> > F : You may be right. In this case there wouldn'be much hope. (Here I
just
> > recall the exact words of Burger !)
>
K : Hope is the ultimate pain killer, no? ;)

F : It is, but it also what makes us move ahead and try to find solutions to
our problems.


K : The idea that if we aren't perfectly adapted to all raw foods then there
is
> no hope makes me wonder how you don't consider instincto "right" and
cooked
> "wrong".

F : Sorry, I don't understand this point. I'll think about it overnight...


K : I have a soft spot for AAT too, but it doesn't look much tighter than
> instincto theory at this point. ;)

F : I just had a first look at some papers on it and I went to swim at the
thermal pool, thinking I'm an aquatic ape.


 > F : A lot of cheese and macaronis ! But no refined sugar, no junk food
nor
> > coffee since 1964.

K : Yeah, of course, instincto is better than that. To decide if it is
better
> than a mixed raw/cooked paleodiet, one would have to experiment further,
no?

F : Yes. But I don't like boiled patatoes.


K : Burger needs agressing. Indeed, the instinctos like yourself and your
> friends are doing honesty and integrity a great disservice in your hands
off
> attitude about criticizing him. It makes you all look like you sympathize
> with him and his behaviors.

F : See Jean-Claude answer.I don't care about his behavior to the same
extend I don't care about the behavior of Copernic, Edison, Einstein or
Rudolph Diesel, even if my car is a Diesel and I use electricity for my PC
to answer you.


K : It casts doubt on the supposition that we are best off with an instincto
> diet. It doesn't prove anything.

F : Yes, you and I as well doubt. Doubt was the main reason for me to beginn
the experiment, as it might have been yours.



K : Are you saying there is no disease in wild animals without access to
human
> garbage?

F : I ain't absolutely sure of anything in this field since I'm not a
zoologist, but there are good indications that most of the animal dieaseses
are due to pollution of their environment. Another cause might be a change
in climate or in environmental conditions. Some animals are also driven
outside their original area by human activities and my get
sick by lack of some of their original nutrients.


K : (...) But there is would still be sickness and disease.

F : I don't know. Natural selection takes care of the abnormal ones before
LRS, so the are eliminated without procreating.


 K : (...)There must be an overall positive trade-off
> toward cooking or it wouldn't be so prevelant.

F : You're right. Cooking allows us to live in aerias where our original
food doesn't grow, allowing us to feed on foods not edible raw. So, our
modern world was born and it wouldn't have grown in the same way
without cooking. A very interesting subject!


K : Meat that is cooked is eaten, not left to rot. Raw meat does indeed rot,
> especially in humid climates.

F : Yes.


> > F : Here we brush our teeth and do not run after a mongoose escaping
from a
> > garbage can...
> > When my former wife got malaria in Penang, I rushed to the pharmacy.

K : You are wise.

F : I d'like to specify what I wrote before. Burger HAD long ago warned us
against malaria and trichinosis.
I remember that an instincto nammed Jacques Castagnet died of malaria in
Africa
in the 80s. He didn't follow Burger's advice and  fasted untill he
died, so he sacrificed himself just to show that even when fasting one may
die of paludism.


> > F : You're right, but most disagree with the concepts of the
> > "metasexuality".
>
K : Good on them!

F : They may be right. In this case all questions and inquiring about it are
irrelevant and everything goes well in the best of the worlds.


F : > This shows that we are not a sect of indocrinated fanatics.
>
K : But still you defend Burger.

F : My car is powered by a Diesel engine, not by Rudolph Diesel himself.
Nevertheless I'm gratefull to him.

.

> > F : As far as I am concerned his mental health is OK and I do not know
about
> > his intimate behaviour, except by hearsay. Since I don't know, I won't
> > spread gossips.
>
K : Cop out. If you are pals with his old friends you know what he has been
up
> too. Dismissing it all as heresay is simply an easy out IMO.

F : I'm not here to judge anyone. I'm not interested in the private and
intimate live of others. I like to learn and argue about theories, not about
persons. (IMO ??)


K :Ano is the only one who got sick with trich. Others have not eaten
mongoose
> and have had other problems.

F : Searching through the archives of this list takes a lot of time. But you
provided us with the case of the son of Jean-Claude, with no enamel on some
blackened first teeth. Jean-Claude wrote the story on the French instincto
list and I asked him why he doesn't tell it straight on this list. Seems
there's a problem between you and him preventing to do so.(? !)
He says the mother was not eating instincto at the birth, nor was she when
breast feeding. She had eaten kinda vegan-instincto for only 8 months, but
stopped 2 months before giving birth. There are good reasons to think that
eating vegan-instincto is not suitable. So, that case has nothing to do with
instincto as defined by GCB, if it could have some little ties with a
vegan-instinctive nutrition.
So, we'll have to investigate another case you will no doubt provide us. I
hope I won't have to come to Hawaii for that purpose, but rather for
windsurfing.


K : Why don't the mongooses die from trich?

F : Do we know that not a single mongoose died from trich?

F : (...)  But they d'be all right in a unpolluted environnement, for sure.

K : How can you be so sure? Because the theory says so? I thought it was all
one big experiment. But you can't dismiss information if it runs counter to
the predictions of the theory. That's just cheating.

F : "Sure" just slipped out of my fingers. In fact I'm sure of very few
things... "Probably" would have been the proper word.


> > F : Yes, doesn'it sound logical, since before there was no pottery? Some
> > food could be grilled but it remains a mystery whether it was a current
> > practice or not. It could have been in some locations and not in some
> > others.
>
K : The logic fails. There are many cooking methods that don't require
pottery.

F : Yes, in one way. In another way we could say they didn't need and so
didn't make potttery because they didn't cook. But I think JC explanation is
better than mine.


> > F : You ignore the examples of ever bigger hospital and  ever increasing
> > number of very sick and suffering cooked food eaters of every age.

K : I don[t ignore them at all. They just don't "prove" instincto theory. I
am
> comparing an entirely raw paleo diet with a mixed/raw paleodiet. Comparing
> either to modern eaters is almost pointless.

F : Yes, why not such an experiment?

K : Anyway, you are proving to be quite a reasonable fellow in many ways.
Don't
> know what else to say. Maybe I should go back to instincto and you can
start
> some cooking and then we'll have further notes to compare, eh? ;)

F : Thank you! Good idea...but no boiled patatoes, please.
And thanks also for this interesting talk.
>
Cheers,
Francois
>