Hey Peter! Very informative post. And since I didn't get called to sub
today, it is time to type some parasites, invent a couple acromyms, and try
hard not to piss everyone off in the process...;)

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. I am not quite sure of
>what to make to make of that.

Neither do I, but one is never going to have absolute certainty about
anything unless one immerses oneself in dogma like fundamental religion or
fruitarianism or instincto an a bad day, and then one is false-to-facts.
God may not play dice, but even so the edges of the dice God doesn't play
with are fuzzy and hanging from the creases of our neo-cortex. Or God may
not play dice but we mortals might do best to play the percentages: a
healthy-as-possible immune system gives better odds than the pharmacuetical
companies. (As you might quess, I was recently to a "head-house" in the
form of the Showtime's Canadian version of Vonnegut's "Harrison
Bergeron"--ha! a video definately worth a $1.50)

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. Except perhaps in sciences like
physics (though I seriously doubt it myself), we will never find a
universal law--which is not stated as a negation--that holds true across
all examples. The map is not the territory. A theory can not be absolutely
comprehensive without being inconsistant, and vice versa.

Nevertheless, we should demand of a theory that it be useful, that it
explain more of the information than a "competing" theory, that it be
beautiful in its formulations, simple in its tenets. IMO, the usefulness,
elegance and explanitory power of the beneficial microbe theory (BMT) far
exceeds the dangerous microbe theory (DMT). BMT explains parasite (whether
worm-like, bacterial, or viral, or subviral) action in the general
population and rawists, in domesticated animals and wild ones. The DMT is
relatively ugly, of limited usefulness (see the battles raging about the
compulsory nature of vaccinations, side effects, etc.), and doesn't explain
the fact that instinctos and other RAFfers are almost universally unharmed
by parasites. The BMT supports the primacy of a healthy immune system,
where the DMT (treatments especially) undermines the same. (An interesting
"exception" is some forms fo weakened-antigen vaccinations, which are
trying to teach the immune system a new trick--whether it is useful or not
for rawists will be debated for decades I'd imagine). Further, the BMT is
individually empowering, where the DMT is institutionally so.

Whether or not there is parasitic danger in RAF might not be considered in
isolation of whether RAF is a great boon to the human immune system.
Perhaps one of the reasons that RAFfers are so cavalier about the parasite
issue is that they can afford to be: RAF and other raw foods apparently
feed an organism in such a way that ideations of fear about submicroscopic
Evil appear to fall away. Indeed, the more interesting issue may be how
this actually occurs in a well-nourished individual rather than the
incredibly small chance that a RAFfer (or anyone else) will be harmed by a
parasite. Or to put it another way, RAF may do the immune system a whopping
hell of a lot more good than a parasite can do bad.

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.

>Of the above Sally Fallon is the most prudent but also has the least
>experience with RAF's<snip>

And this is a large part of the irony: very few people have experience with
RAF. And the most zealotrous opposition comes form the vegan camp whose
ignorance is only matched by the decibal level of their protest. It's kinda
like preaching to someone else's choir all the time, and to make matter's
worse, the choir more of less demands preaching of you with its more or
less constant queries about parasites. (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'm not whining, but if the choir demanded an
explanation from mainstream science/medicine (regarding the RAFfer overall
experience of the BMT) as loudly as they demand an explanation from RAFfers
about why they shouldn't fear parasites to the exclusion of the consumption
of important categories of RAF, there would probably be much more research
on the issue. It is particularly ironic that an "explanation" is demanded
from RAFfers within the confines of DMT, which simply can not deal with the
RAFfers experience.

Bruno's book is a grand step in the direction of the BMT. One might
understand that parasites, while not being of no importance, are probably
not much on the minds of most RAFfers (except perhaps rabies if we are to
beleive our antagonists ;)). It is an intellectual consideration more than
anything else for me. Like the ethical veganism issue, parasites just don't
much matter to me. Few people have the scientific inclination to propose an
alternative theory (BMT). And when they do, as Bruno has so eloquently, the
reaction is predictable: none. It goes in one ear and out the other for the
vast majority. The group that seems even more interested (than RAFfers are)
in the BMT, are the approcahing-RAFfers. This makes good sense, of course,
and the writings of Schmid, Bruno, etc. is gold in such circumstances, but
the need for certainty may be the biggest parasite of all. Anyone who
claims that the BMT provides certainty more than support may be missing the
point entirely.

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.
There will likely be plenty of time to resort to heavy duty medical
treatment if need be, especially if one's mind isn't clouded with instincto
Truth Taken to Far. If the dreaded "flesh-eating virus" comes to San Diego,
I suspect I will fare much better than my neighbors: perhaps I'd die within
weeks or months instead of days...;)

>, 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.

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. Believing that our taste buds can provide
perfect protection after many thousands of years of agriculture/cooking,
decades of personal mis-nutrition--and an increasingly polluted environment
(including toxins which are reportedly tasteless and odorless) which
includes newly mutated-in-concert-with-pollution microbes--may be folly.
Domesticated farm animals, even if naturally raised, will sometimes poison
themselves on raw vegetation. This is a somewhat different issue than
parasites, but does show that we might be humble in our trust of the taste
buds (TTB? ;)). Even on my most conceited days, I don't consider myself
much more than a warped, denatured, and domesticated human animal stumbling
around in raw and wild territory.

Still, TTB is better than the alternative if the alternative is avoiding
RAF. I am somewhat floored that Wonderplanitz advocates commercially-raised
non-organic flesh if other animal foods are not available. Many instinctos
have felt ill after consuming poor-quality RAF. On the other hand, Melisa
has enjoyed such meat (when she had a high craving for meat early on and
there was no higher-quality available) without ill effect. And
Vonderplanitz apparently gets results consistant with the BMT with
less-than-perfect RAF, including dairy, which he advocates as well. (I
think it was Roy who mentioned about the idea that toxins in consumed raw
fat will go through the system undisturbed, and I think it was
Vonderplanitz, not Bruno, who said such--but anyway, I find such a notion
in direct opposition to 1] the accumulation of toxins in the food chain
(how did those toxins in the fat/organs of our food animals get there if
not assimilated from _its_ food), and 2] the tendancy to tumors in fish and
sea mammals in polluted waters (why didn't the toxins find safe harbor in
the fat, or pass through, for these creatures?)

Futher, just because a certain parasite does no great damage doesn't mean
it is particularily useful. Our compost pile breeds swarms of small flies,
especially after a rain. While no harm is probably done to the pile, I
can't imagine how the flies benefit it much either. If there were some
non-toxic intervention to reduce the fly population, I would use it simply
because of the annoyance factor. The flies are not tasty*--the ones I
inadvertantly inhale and chew in the dark seem to be forcing themselves on
me anyway. ;) While the microbes helping to decompose the compost are
clearly beneficial to natural systems and the pile itself, the flies may
just be "hangers on". Further, if the composition of the pile becomes
unbalanced (even though it is raw) all sorts of different grub poplulations
may flourish. While I can appreciate how such populations might be
restorative to balance, I question whether the addition of a missing raw
element--or the elimination or reduction of one in too-great of quantity,
citrus peels for example--might be more prudent than leaving it to the
grubs. I am well aware of the limatations of such an analogy in terms of
the human organism (a compost pile is often a high-temp situation, it's not
as self-contained, etc.) but I think it may be useful nevetheless. ((Peter
has mentioned that he holds a particular bowel management protocol in
favor, where particular microbes are deliberately re-established. Such
methods, in my mind, predict much future (and likely more proper than
present) medical intervention. I can further imagine the medicine of the
future exposing rawists to a variety of microbes/viruses which are
currently considered pathagenic, precisely to aid in detoxification of
early generations of rawists.)) Tweeking our internal compost pile may have
advantages.

There is some evidence that wild primates will "self-medicate" with
particular vegetation, apparently to purge intestinal parasites. 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". (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...;))

Several years ago I read a stop-me-in-my-tracks article in the now-defunct
Science magazine (as in Science 88 and Science 89, at least I think it was
that mag since I have never been able to find it in Scientific American
back issues) about a gaia-like theory of microbes. If anyone has info on
the article or researcher, I sure would appreciate a pointer! Anyway, I
think it was written by a French-Canadian researcher in Montreal but am not
sure. The view held that microbes be looked at as a vast multi-faceted
planetary organism, mutating in a jiffy to changes in condition and
constantly on the duty of keeping the vital links between the organic and
the inorganic world in flux, chomping anything of questionable "integrity"
(like metabolic wastes and weak/useless microbes, plants, animals), and of
course, simply multiplying in accordance with it's food supply. When viewed
in this way (as we might view an ant colony instead of a single ant), it is
easier to see that the interface between useful and not useful in our
definition of parasites is necessarily fuzzy, not _perfectly_ suited to our
point of view only. Especially when we consider the explosion of "new
molecules" and pollution on the planet (not to mention in our food supply),
microbes are probably being put to task as never before in their gaia-like
role as player in keeping biosphere homeostasis.

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.
That a very very tiny percentage of parasites, like malaria (sickle-cell)
and others (the esoteric and very prehistoric "baboon-marker" gene for
one), have inspried genetic mutations in humans which have been preserved
by natural selection should garner our respect for the power and role of
both parasites and genetics, as well as the overall glory of the human
immune system in dealing with most parasites in accordance with the BMT.

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... ;)

Cheers,
Kirt (who was going to start posting on the issue with a short discussion
of rabies this am, but these things never go as planned for the possibly
parasitically-challenged--PPC ;))

* Perhaps I should be harvesting those flies and cultivating a taste for
them, eh? I could rig up a light facing a fan forced stocking pouch/net
which would collect scads of them overnight. Hmmm...what will the neighbors
think? For that matter, what would Melisa think? =:0 ;)

Kirt Nieft / Melisa Secola
[log in to unmask]