mark wilson wrote:
> Hello Jay,

Hello,

> Interesting post,

Thank you.

> but I must say I'm having a
> difficult time figuring you out.  Based on the
> information on your website, and recent posts here, I
> get the feeling you're a hardcore member of the
> natural hygiene movement, correct?  If not what
> principles of the paleo diet do you align yourself
> with.

I do not eat 99% of the things that are off limits in either Neanderthin or
the Paleo Diet. I have not eaten meat, other than fish, from a supermarket
for many years now. I grow my own rabbits to eat, and I did have chickens
but some dogs just killed them all. We rarely ate our chickens, but I ate
raw eggs from them fairly regularly. The only other meat I have eaten is
wild game. I helped butcher two wild hogs just last weekend and they were
pretty tasty. Most meat I eat cooked but I will eat raw fish if prepared
right. The majority of my vegetables and fruit I eat raw, and I have a
juicer and drink organic carrot juice pretty regularly.

My life does not revolve around meat, however. If I can't get some wild game
meat, I will do without and not be bothered at all. I was vegan for over a
year and did well on it. I believe that a reduced-animal-product diet is
excellent for a short term detox, however, the long-term unknowns were
enough that I decided I didn't want to gamble with it...so I decided I would
add game meat to my diet.

If you went to my web site and saw my pictures, the last one taken was last
November. I will take another one this November. My weight has held
perfectly steady and any gain is from muscle mass, which is fine with me. I
have continued to work out all year long and my arms and legs are doing well
with my stomach being the most stubborn (if I didn't have some loose skin
hanging around from losing 100 pounds, I would actually have some abs
developing...but that is life).


> B17 huh?  Sounds to me like the old Laetrile argument
> that has been fairly well refuted if I recall.  Show
> me the science, convince me and I'll add a few apricot
> pits into my morning smoothie.

My comment on this isn't directed at you, since you asked fairly nicely
about it, but to the everyone in general:

Isn't it strange how you all know all the research on low-fat diets is bunk,
the high cholesterol research is junk, and the reams of research on
vegetable oils is garbage...and you all know you are right and all of
science is wrong.

But the same people that did the above flawed research are the same people
who refute vitamin B17, and lord if they say it doesn't work, then let's all
take it upon ourselves to crucify anyone that says it does!

There were actually only a couple of real trials of Laetrile done and some
of the researchers as much as admitted later on to sabotaging the tests.
This is addressed in a fairly detailed chapter of G. Edward Griffin's World
Without Cancer.

Vitamin B17 is actually a paleo-based argument if there ever was one for
cancer. Vitamin B17 is a B-complex vitamin that is found in abundance in
wild fruits and vegetables but has been virtually eliminated from our
produce and fruits due to crossbreeding, genetically modifying, etc.  So
when people talk about hunter-gatherers, they are talking about people who
ate quite a bit of a vitamin that we get little of (although there are a
couple of foods still moderately high in vitamin B17. Most berries, even
domestic one, still have it in them. And interestingly, there is hardly a
book on cancer that doesn't point to berries as having amazing anti-cancer
properties).

Throughout history, no chronic-degenerative disease has been
cured by the use of poison. This approach has been tried repeatedly in times
past with horrible results. When scurvy was found to be caused by a vitamin
C deficiency, it was many years between this finding and when the scientists
of the time actually admitted it was true. Not too long ago, in our own
country, the exact same scenario was played out with pellagra, with
scientists only admitting that it was a vitamin deficiency when they were
absolutely forced to admit it. How many people died while science searched
in vain for drug that would cure these diseases?

> Another overly simplistic statement.  If it were true
> we'd all be making trips to Mexico for Laetrile
> treatments and investing in apricot orchards.

I worked with a woman whose brother went to Mexico and was healed of cancer,
though not by B17. I also have a close friend who personally knew a woman
who did do laetrile back in '83, I believe. I asked my friend about this
person just a couple of months ago and she thinks she is still alive,
actually outliving her husband who didn't have cancer...and if she has died,
it was within the last year or so and my friend hasn't heard about it yet.
Note that both of these people went on to live pretty normal lives.

I have only known two people that lived more than a couple of years after
chemo and radiation. While one does have a fairly normal life, he has had
some serious, life-threatening problems arise from the chemo. The other is
still alive but looks like death warmed over.  Every other person I have
personally known, and this is getting to be quite a few now, that had
radiation or chemo were dead in less than six months, even if they were
pretty strong when it started out and could have obviously lived longer had
they done nothing at all.

You people can scoff if you want, but if my life depended on it, I have done
my own research and came up with my own plan of action.

Jay