Peter concludes:
>>If Schmid is on target regarding his caution on fresh water fish that
>>along with the instincto malaria issue shows that there are a couple of
>>exceptions to the beneficial microbe theory.

>Kirt :
>Perhaps your conclusion shows that in nature there will always be
>exceptions to any theory one might construct about nature. This may seem
>like a cop out, but it is not really.
>(...)When the BMT starts to embrace the exceptions as well as the "proof" of
>it's case, we will know it has matured in important ways. In other words,
>when future Maximize Immunitys includes chapter(s) on counter-examples of
>the BMT (such as malaria) it will be all the stronger and robust.

Stop. Are you serious when you say that malaria is a counter example of the
beneficial Microbe theory because one unfortunate twenty-four year old girl
who had previously eaten cooked foods for eighteen  years, and whose parents
had been eating cooked foods since  Methuselah, has died beacuse a doctor
didn't recognize in her the fierce symptoms of a ternary or quaternary fever ?
Beware of  your self praised "anti-dogmatism". It should not blind you to
the realities of our "degenerated" state -both physical and mental-. I often
warn other crudivores that this thing about "complete detoxination after
x,y,z, years" of raw diet/fasting... is just "hygienist" hype, being sold by
the new  merchants of "elixir of life". The reality unfortunately is much
bleaker,  not really a  selling point for  future  instincto : it will take
generations of raw eaters to restore our "health capital" to its normal
attributes.
Those who are not convinced should only read again Pottenger's Cats.
My old uncle who studied medicine but never dared to become a physician,
used to repeat to me every so often : "you sow the seeds of health before 7
, and you eat whatever you've sown after 25 ". 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 :
(...) (I have _never_ talked to someone in
>8 eight years who didn't promptly bring up objections to RAF on parasitical
>grounds. Never ever.)

I've never ever met somebody who  immediately raised the parasite argument
and who, notwithstanding his former argument,  has ever  considered to try
and check  the diet for himself... Personally when I hear that kind of
argument, I do my best to change the subject of the discussion. You simply
cannot stand in the way of other people's fears, whether rational or
irrational. You would be amazed by the number of people who think that all
the good things  that have befallen on men since the beginning of history is
entirely  due to the  courage and determination of our ancestors
(particularly in cartesian France...) . Our irreligious (I'd rather say
anti-religious) world has obliterated the notion of Providence in
everybody's mind, except amongst the learned and the savants. The very idea
of instinct has disappeared from scientific theories at the asme time as the
idea of a providential nature.

>(...)
>Also, no one has yet stated the obvious, a parasite which quickly kills
>it's host has some extraordinary problems of natural selection to overcome.

Quite wrong. This used to be Burger 's main argument against  parasites, as
delivered in his two days "Cours d'introduction"

>Peter :
>>, so I choose to believe that when eating high
>>quality raw animal foods, our taste buds will steer us away from any
>>potentially dangerous servings.

>Kirt :
Hmmm...I don't, at least not as much as I'd hope I could. We have both
>Vonderplanitz and Burger anecdotes about their taste failing to prevent
>them from mushroom poisoning.

That taste buds do not protect against many a parasitic infection is
certainly true. But Burger would not have dared saying that tastebuds do not
protect us against mushroom poisoning. 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 :
>There is some evidence that wild primates will "self-medicate" with
particular vegetation, apparently to purge intestinal parasites.

I wonder if our beloved cousins  really follow your reasoning when they
wander in the quest for the miracle herbs and plants...

Kirt :
>If the BMT is at all times correct, how would such behavior be explained?
There is also the evidence of wild animal populations being quite harmed by viral
>"sharing" (most importantly for our purposes, the gorillas/TB and
>chimps/polio). This too, is not explained by the BMT and deserves
>discussion in those "missing chapters".

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. One would have
expected from a scientist of such high attainment as Bruno, a more balanced
book, leaving some room  for eventual  refutation... or strenghtening. This
in turn  would probably have meant additional research for Bruno (of the
kind  not immediately available to him...), and would therefore have slashed
in his otherwise extremely busy TV/Radio  agenda.

 (And Denis: hush up about the
>transfer of parasites from wild to domesticated animals! I really don't
>want to be rounded up by the health department as a non-symptomatic carrier
>of any germ they might someday decide to blame on instinctos...;))

If I understand correctly, a typical coarse expression amongst instincto
would  be (instead of  "you, full of s...") :  "you, full of parasites"

>If a small % of parasites are problems, even to straight-edge instinctos
>and wild animals, I am not surprised. Indeed, I would only be surprised if
>a few _weren't_, as that would seem to be contrary to the nature of nature.

Well stated, Kirt . Evolution is selection is perfection is evolution...

>
>I ask (I _would_ beg, but it seems so parasitical to do so) the few who are
>wading into the RAF arena to keep some "third-person mental tabs" on their
>attitudes about parasites and report to the list how it goes for you over
>time. Hopefully, only a small percentage of you will die from your
>efforts... ;)

With a health and life insurance company of our own, we could devise  means
to trace  all "diseases" and "bugs" threatening  or incommoding the life of
instinctos  throughout the world. A project for year 2099...

Cheers,
Denis