Hey Denis!

I am delighted to have a "straight" exchange with you. Trying to decipher
your humor from your deliberately enigmatic ideas from your actual points
was more than I could handle in a written forum such as this. Thank you for
easing up.

Kirt:
>>Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Again like Burger's mushroom and berry
>>stories, your addition of details and clarification of the woman's death
>>leaves me even more aware of the limits of such ideas as the BMT. So she
>>was a 6-year instincto? And six years instincto will not protect one from a
>>fever death? Yeah, that's a counter-example to the BMT to me. Blatant and
>>outright.

Denis :
>Kirt, IMO, you are demanding too much, too soon to the raw diet. What is the
>real extent of the so-called dexotination as compared to our past
>intoxination, even after six years of hard line instincto ? I have no idea,
>and I would challenge anyone who would propose any definite time based
>scheme of detoxination. The subject of "purification" from accumulated
>intoxination has been used and overused by food hygieneists,  but without
>any real description of what it is exactly that  it entails. But if I had to
>give  an answer I would say that, depending on one's own infant/teen food
>record, the whole detoxination may well, even after fourty years of
>instincto , be "peanut" compared to the silent damage wrought by years of
>cereal and dairy binging.  It would also be ridiculous to think that
>intoxination stops at the time you start eating raw : naturally occuring
>toxins, undigested proteins ... may also cause havoc in our cellular
>microcosm.

Kirt:
There are several issues at work here it seems. As for how much detoxing
can happen and a timeline for it: I agree that detox is necassarily far
from complete in a lifetime and a timeline should remain undeliniated at
present. In a sense the first trial is happening now but in a self-selected
way. I agree that intox does not stop when eating raw (and is further
compounded by modern pollution). I agree that hygienists perseverate on
detoxing, and find that many instinctos do as well.

As for your claim that I am demanding too much too soon, I am probably
guilty as charged regarding malaria, but...

Denis:
>If first generation instinctos dare venturing into the tropical forests
>without adequate medicine, it is certainly because we  tend to translate
>unconsciously our   subjective well-being with our  somewhat  "recovered
>health". Why wouldn't we  believe so after all the "sacrifices" we've agreed
>to do, compared to our prior way of life ? And why would the naturopath and
>the  book writer who live on such hope  refute this natural bias in our
>thinking ?

Kirt:
You seem to be arguing that we need medicine to be healthy because of our
denatured history, no? And perhaps further, that the hope of perfect health
(or at least freedom from medicine) is what gets rawists "hooked" on the
regime in the first place, but at some point they would be better off
waking up to the limitations of an instincto diet?

These are important and sobering thoughts which are usually swept under the
rug by zealots of various raw diets. By bringing them up you are doing a
great service IMO. I feel people approaching raw diets would be much better
served with all the information available. Too often they are 1] wooed by
clueless zealots with overstatements of perfect health (or Instinctive
Redemption in every other area of life ;)), or 2] "protected" from the
truth of the limitations of diet, or both. My guess is that most
fruitarians, many raw-vegans, and some instinctos are in group 1 (whether
they write books about it or not); and some raw-vegans and many instinctos
are in group 2. I _do_ have hope--but it is not so much the hope that "if
we sacrifice then we are saved". I hope that rawism can mature to the point
where newcomers are presented a realistic and even _understated_ picture of
a raw diet--a view which includes limitations from the get-go, and goes
easy on the metaphysics. By promising the world, but delivering a life of
detox (if you are doing it "correctly") or deficiencies (if you aren't--
fruitarian, etc), raw writers are preventing the growth of rawism beyond a
rudimentary crawling stage.

As an aside, I suspect that your future (and likely quite ascerbic)
feedback on our final ms (published by photocopy or otherwise) will be
something of an acid test as to whether we have been at all successful
avoiding some of these trappings. If you  bother with reading it someday.
In any case, you have my posts here on raw-food to wrangle with. ;)

Denis:
>I appreciated Burger's cautious approach to the problem in "La
>guerre du cru" but I did not find the same circumspection  in Comby's book.
>[ I would kindly suggest  Bruno to write a small publication on the
>following topic  "How I was too confident with instincto as a solution for
>AIDS" and to incorporate the known death statistics of Aids patients having
>followed an instinctive diet ...-or supposed to have followed... ]

Kirt:
I would love to see this as well. The trouble inherent in "supposed to have
followed [the diet]" is a great stumbling block to any human research and
one I see no realistic solution for. If we were to use, say, a prison
population as reseach groups (in order to control for "cheating" to some
degree) the prison environment itself becomes a huge factor. The idea that
maybe several generations downline instinctos might have a sporting chance
at our native health (whatever that might be, and whether it includes the
possibility of malarial death) is a pretty moldy carrot held on an
impossibly long stick. Happily, I find the personal benefits to a raw diet
overwhelming to my difficulties with malaria <g>. Further, it does not
seem, overall, like a sacrifice but instead a delight. But all this begs
the question: how and why would a person get into instincto in the first
place? Aside from those with visible pathologies and illnesses, what
possible reason would a healthy person have for experimenting with such an
extreme diet?

I hope your "kindly suggestion" to Bruno really is so. Most of your
mentions of Bruno have so far _seemed_ quite tainted by sour grapes as much
as they may be reasonable disagreements. And since I, and I assume most
other listers, have no idea of the underlying story or dynamics, it might
be best to keep the discussion of the merits of Brunos's work on a
"gentlemanly" level, if you'll pardon my sexist phrase. (Of course, that is
easier for me to say than to do myself.)

Denis:
>To wrap up, the fact that first generation instincto may die of malaria or
>other parasitic diseases is no counter-proof  of BMT. Counter-examples of
>BMT we will most probably find, but, IMO, we should be looking for these
>outside the main stock of the great plagues.

Kirt:
If we can't use first generation instincto's as subjects, how would we find
_any_ counter-examples? How many generations are you requiring?

I see what you are saying on a theoretical basis, but I demand of a theory
mostly that it be useful. Science demands that it be falsafiable. There is
a point for me where theory must give way to practice or it risks becoming
hopelessly esoteric. Let's say that you are right that malaria will be no
problem for multi-generational instinctos (which, IMO, has a good sporting
chance of being true). I would still favor considering malaria a
couter-example of the BMT because instinctos _die_ from it now, precluding
(or at least hurting) their chances for successful offspring. Whether a
tenth generation instincto gets a useful cold from malaria is of no use to
a cadaever. I understand that "natural selection" may not care whether I
live or die from malaria (and may even prefer that I don't reproduce for
reasons unbeknownst me), but _I_ care.

Perhaps we are simply arguing from two points of view. Yours is properly
rigorous and looks at a larger frame of reference than mine which is more
"practical". I understand what you are saying, but choose to err on the
side of near-sightedness, and conservatism (later generations may well die
of malaria too! and you can not falsify that statement in reverse ;)). I
can always be pleasantly surprised later on (after I'm dead most likely)
when multi-generation instinctos may laugh off malaria. In the mean time,
whether malaria kills me as part of its "detox benefit" is of no _use_ to
me. I choose to consider it a counter-example of the BMT--while at the same
time respecting your approach.

Denis:
>Another reason why malaria is not a good candidate as "counter-example of
>BMT" is its suceptibility to a correction in the diet of the patient. Below
>is just an exemple of what a careful reading of old books may  bring to the
>subject (translated from french. Book is dated 1953 ) :

>"In Porto Rico, only the lower class has malaria, while better-fed upper
>classes remain unharmed for the most. Since the mosquito has no social class
>prejudice, the disease must strike  only those predisposed to
>malnutrition....Nor is it a matter of wire netted windows. The Amazonian
>Indians never used wire mesh but sanitary controllers in PERU have noted
>that Indinans of the ACRE region were almost unhurt by the disease- except
>amongst those who used to go working for the Whites for a while. They were
>forced to buy expensive food supplies, and could only afford to buy manioc,
>rice and beans whereas in thier forest, they used to eat wild fresh fruits,
>fresh meat and fresh fish."
>The author then goes on discussing how ancylostomiasis, or hookworm disease,
>can be "solved" by  rational nutrition. "There will always be a sufficient
>number (of germ carriers) to trigger catastrophes if individuals are not
>fortified by rational nutrition.A lot of good food at a low price was as
>important as pest control for the digging of the Panama canal..."

Kirt:
I wonder sometimes how much is just plain lost adrift on each side of a
language barrier! Your fine English and, I assume, French prevents you from
the double-blind-sightedness of my English-only. I truly love to hear about
French writing which is beyond my reach. Thanks.

Nevertheless, none of the above really "explains" why a six-year instincto
(who was presumably nourished on a "better-fed upper class" diet before
going raw, which should be a quantum leap above) dies from malaria. It does
however support the notion that infectious disease wreaks most havoc on the
most mis-nourished--a notion which is often demonstrated. For you to
completely turn my thinking around on the matter, you would deal with the
examples of wild animal populations who die from polio, tuberculosis, etc.
Anything that would explain those events as examples of BMT would go a long
way towards my conversion to your point of view.

You'll get no argument from me that a raw diet is central to immune
function health, etc., but there are many who will point out that the
upper-class diet is associated with prevelance of degenerative disease. I
am holding my breath to see how instinctos die. ;) Will it be from the same
degenerative diseases as SAD-eaters, but with a delayed onset? Will it be
from new types of degenerative disease? Will it be instinctive (fast to
death when you've had your fill of life)? Will it be from holding their
breath? What?

Denis:
>I was joking ...Of course the doctor is not responsible...although in
>France, he would be liable to legal proceedings without any other
>consideration.  I guess in the States too.

Kirt:
I am delighted to hear you were joking.

Kirt:
>>I have heard that she is not the only instincto who had troubles with
>>malaria, that others (in Africa) ended up resorting to medical treatment as
>>well.

Denis:
>This is true. some friends of mine have had to come back hurriedly for the
>same reason...

Kirt:
Thanks for the confirmation. Could you share the details, perhaps? So far
there has been only heresay, and since I may well spend more time in
malarial areas, I value the experiences of those who have been bitten
before me, so to speak.

>Denis :
> This idea that you can only

>>>marginally  recoup after 25, the errors that your parents allowed to be
>>>perpetrated on you  when you were a child is an idea I very much value.

Kirt:
>>While it is likely _very_ true, I wonder how much comfort it provides
>>simply because it can serve as a catch-all excuse for anything less than
>>Perfect Health all the while "protecting" the BMT and the rest of instincto
>>theory.

Denis:
>I never said that BMT is 100 % sure. On the contrary. Why would it be true
>for Human beings since cases of "erring" instincts with  deadly parasites
>have been reckoned amongst wild animals ?  I jsut think, once again, that
>Malaria is not a good counter-exemple.

Kirt:
Fair enough.

Kirt:
>>I find those very ideas making a big comeback in the form of evolutionary
>>psychology and (to a lesser developed degree) Darwinian medicine. Are these
>>new fields unknown so far in Europe?

Denis:
>Evolutionary psychology, Darwinian medicine : new field ? Just old stuff
>with new scientific packaging. That's it ! Everything has been said Kirt. E
>V E R Y T H I N G ....Thousands of men have pragmatically  pondered over
>similar  problems during the past decades and centuries.

Kirt:
And the Chinese invented gunpowder for fireworks instead of bullets. And
the Greeks knew the earth was round and went around the sun (or something
like that). But the difference is what is made of the idea--its _utility_
at that time. One could argue an idea is always of the same potential
usefulness regardless of century or millenia, but I don't consider it so
myself. On a personal level, we may come across an idea (say, grains are
problematic) but for some reason it only becomes useful information (that
is, we act on the idea) when other (undefined) factors are in proper
alliance. Perhaps the same is true to a degree for cultures, where an idea
has its proper germination scenario, but may remain more or less unsprouted
in other times.

With your historical predisposition (which I find very edifying!!) you can
probably comment on the idea much more lucidly than I ever could.

Denis:
>Do you think that,
>with their mind unhampered by the verbal diarrhea of modern day scientists,
>with their education uncontaminated by modern day materialism, they were any
>sillier than we are ? Do you really think we are ahead of time on
>theoretical grounds ?

Kirt:
I would be hard pressed to defend our "silliness", but if science leads to
verbal diarrhea, it also provides some sort of reality check (not a
comprehensive one of course) on the "idea diarrhea" found in fringe
dietetics.

Denis :
>>>This, in my view, is a biaised
>>>reading of the mushroom episode referred to by Mr TU. Our instinct does
>>>protect us, but our curiosity is often stronger than our instinct...

Kirt :
>>And our curious nature is in large part an instinctive mechanism.
>>"Defining" instinct and other terms on the fly seems to be a specialty of
>>instincto posturing...

Denis:
>Curiosity to swallow unknown foodstuffs is not natural,as  evidenced by
>numerous experiments on neophobia of animals and infants.

Kirt:
I would be curious of the details of such experiments. Isn't every food
"new" to an infant? Or is a food provided by mother accepted as safe by an
infant. Are you saying that unless a food is great-tasting (whether "new"
or not) animals and infants would not swallow it? How is this verifiable
since we can not ask the animal or infant to rate the sensory pleasure of a
food, "new" or otherwise?

Even so, if our innate curiosity (or are you saying any curiosity beyond
infancy would be "unnatural"?) is larger than our innate neophobia then
which is "instinctive"? Or are all the capacities of our larger neo-cortex
non-instinctive? And conversely, it appears to me that humans lose much of
their innate curiosity as they age. That is, toddlers seem to have a peak
curiosity (reminiscient of primates) which becomes somewhat dulled by the
growing neo-cortical capacities (or is it simply age?). So, if it could be
shown that hungry primates and/or toddlers would not eat any "poisonous"
berries or mushrooms, I would be very swayed by such research. Perhaps you
can point me in the right direction on this, Denis.


Kirt :
> But whether paraistes are purged with a strongly toxic
>>medicine or with clay or a particularly well-suited leaf/herb or with no
>>apparent active agent at all, the purging does hint that either the
>>parasite in no longer useful (BMT) or that it is _not_ useful period,
>>perhaps even dangerous (DMT).

Denis:
>Or more simply, that the number of (useful) parasites has reached a limit of
>tolerance. The dynamical aspect of the thing is important because it relates
>so much to the dynamics of instinctive nutrition.  The internal symbiotic
>limit of parasites has been studied at lenght for hookworm. Scientists have
>demonstrated that it may be more dangerous to have  just a couple of worms
>and very little iron in the diet (the hookworm induces anemia) than many
>worms but a lot of iron in the diet. This is an excellent example that DMT
>is too simple to be true.

Kirt:
And would it be even less dangerous to have no hookworms at all? Again, I
find both DMT and BMT to be "too simple to be true". But BMT is superior to
me in many ways (previously posted).

>>Denis:
>>>You are hinting at the very reason why the scientific community will laugh
>>>at Comby's book, if they ever get a chance to read it. Reclassifying all
>detrimental parasites, microbes
>>>under the " beneficial" banner  is too simplistic, naive, and
>>>anthropocentric a view of the microscopic world. I don't think Comby is
>>>crazy enough to think that all parasites and viruses can be reverted to the
>>>innocuous type in a primitive food environment . However  that is very much
>>>the impression a savant would get from reading his book.

Kirt:
>>Jeez, Denis. You should write your own book and set the world straight on
>>all these matters. If the scientific community laughs it with be for the
>>same arrogant reasons that you appear to be using.

Denis
>If I'm being arrogant, I sincerely  regret it.

Kirt:
OK. And if you are not being arrogant, I sincerely regret saying you were ;)

Kirt:
>> Comby's book is the best shot yet and readable by a layman to boot.

Denis:
>A good book indeed.

Kirt:
Yeah.

Kirt:
>>As far as I am concerned Bruno need not write another word.

Denis:
>I thought you did not agree 100 % with BMT. HOwever,that's what Bruno's book
>is all about...

Kirt:
I exxagerated for effect...sorry. No, I do not think the BMT is 100% true.
What I mean more specifically is that in Chapter 7: What Our Present
Understanding Does Not Explain (of Bruno's Book) he presents 21 questions
which are unanswerable within the current viral research paradigm (DMT),
but which are so within the BMT. I think that when other researchers deal
with those 21 questions in full, then they can put Bruno (and you and I and
anyone else who supports the basics of BMT) on the spot about
counter-examples.

Denis:
>His book looks to me though more like a jigsaw puzzle of nice little pieces
>fabricated elsewhere. He certainly had the merit of composing the table of
>contents, editing the whole stuff, writing liaisons and introductory
>paragraphs...before delivering the whole shebang, without  taking the hassle
>of rereading himself,  to three or four unpaid people, chosen according for
>their  docility and relatively higher  knowledge of french ...  But overall
>a good book Kirt. A book, where, contrary to Burger, one may at least find
>all the bibliographic references  listed at the end, including the hundred
>or so  Bruno never read.

Kirt:
Again, it would help if you honestly shared (if appropriate) what your role
was in the project, and how that role changed, so we would have some idea
of the emotions involved.

Kirt :
>>Those like yourself, however, might do well to set those savants, pendants,
>and other learned fools who are so beneath you straight on all possible matters from
>>the superior stances of your Instinctive Life. "Every other person in the
>>world besides yourself" may not be the only one who is clueless...

Denis:
>Kirt, you know I really appreciate  your responsiveness, and the kindness
>with which you interpret  my thoughts. I commend you for your intuition. I'm
>exactly  that kind of person.

Kirt:
OK, then. Are we even? I have always wanted to have a real conversation
with you and do not enjoy playing "who's the dominant chimp" everytime I
turn around, even if we "battle" with sarcasism instead of fists ;)

Truce?

Cheers,
Kirt