At 05:34 14/03/1997 -0600, you wrote:
>Jean-Louis & Denis : Welcome to Raw-food! I have enjoyed reading your
>contributions very much.

>Denis said:
>>The principle is "neophobia", a behaviour related term which
>>designates the attitude of free ranging animals in front of novel,

>Very interesting points. Do you have any examples of non-smelling and
>non-tasting foods being as dangerous as bad smelling/tasting foods?
>Except for mushrooms I suppose.

Many wild berries are both toxic and non-smelling but  taste is generally
bitter . The taste of potentially toxic foods  may vary from non-tasting
(toxic mushrooms) to outright disgusting . Problematic may be expanded to
the mineral natural/artificial and the gaseous natural/artifical substance.
Non smelling/non tasting substances include grinded  rock, sand, sometimes
earth, but some people may be attracted by earth (geophagy).

Of course all of this is true for food and liquids  but not for gases where
reverse condition  applies:  in natural atmosphere non smelling gases are
not dangerous whereas  manufactured  non smelling gases are super dangerous.
Therefore necessity to define the different types of active /passive
instincts we are endowed with .
But natural gases isolated in artifical atmosphere are dangerous : hence
necessity to respect the environmental conditionning as well as the content
itself  etc etc .....

The subject of instinct physiology is extremely wide. But having perceived
its complexity helps to realize   how cautious we should be in our behaviour
and in our reasoning....

>Denis said:
>>Now a little drill : what was the name of the early US advocate of
>>instinctive nutrition  who wrote hundred years ago :
>>"THE TASTEBUDS ARE THE TALLY KEEPERS OF OUR STOMACH"
>>(tally-keepers :  in french = agent comptable )

>You have got me here. Who is it?
This was just a catch up line to figure out who is preparing a book on
instinctive nutrition in the US. You seem to be the only one so far. You won
the right to play again on one of my future posting.

>Denis said:
>>Stop. Are you serious when you say that malaria is a counter example
>>of the beneficial Microbe theory because one unfortunate twenty-four

>Who is  this girl  and what happened to her? When
>Bruno was here in California last year, he mentioned that some
>instinctos traveling in South East Asia had come down with malaria and
>that they had no choice but to take medicine to get over it.

Bruno knows the story in and out, but he is talkative only when he feels it
necessary for the future of his enterprise. Have you noticed his absence by
the way ? I'm sure he'll say he has no time if you ask why...He should
really be channelling  off information to all of you, but he certainly
prefers to let me do it, cause he knows I can't help... He's  been playing
this game with me for years, and I must admit it works wonders. He knows I
would sell my mother for a scoop on Montramé (I've already sold her a few
times but the buyers keep  returning me  the parcel with a little note
saying "no thanks she barks much too often ").
Any way Veronique (If my memory serves me correctly) at the age of 20 or so
had been a long time volunteer at Montamé when she decided to follow a group
of Young Montraméens to south east Asia. I was letter told she had been  in
love with one of the young dudes in the group. Of course nobody took
anti-malarian medicine and she contracted a very mild fever soon after their
arrival. The girl being a professional nurse or dietetician, I don't
remember exactly, decided to investigate the case and they left their hamac
in the midst of the rainforest to pay a visit to the nearest doctor. The
symptoms were apparently very mild and the doctor decided that there was no
necessity to make a test. The whole group returned to the forest. A week or
two later the symptoms were getting clearer and clearer and they rushed
again to town. She was immediately admitted to the hospital but it was too
late. She died within days.

I'm certainly no expert at all, having no medical degree. BUt I think  that
malarial infestation   is not a counter exemple of  BMT. (Basically I'm
pretty much of the opinion that BMT counter-exemples, whether viral or
parasitic must be limited in time and scope, which is not at all the case of
malaria, therefore pointing out in the direction of human responsability in
the development and maintenance of the disease....I can't even tell you how
this idea came to my mind but I've been hatching it for years... )
However I'm also convinced that a few years, or tens of years of instinctive
nutrition is not enough to prevent against the risk of contracting malaria,
and I would  strongly recommend that anybody planning holidays in these
areas would take all the necessary steps to ensure self protection.
Clearly in this case the responsabilities were several , the prime one being
Burger who, in his de facto quality of Master Mind of the community,
doesn't give a dam about the people he does not  .... The article on
Veronique 's death in Instincto Magazine was one of the worst ever to be
published in the columns (I stopped my subscription at this time. So I guess
I must have been really angry...)
[ Kist completely misread my post but I must admit that I purposefully
teased him into misreading it. I  just  like to see him react "au quart de
tour" as we say in France (an old expression from the time you needed a
crank to start a car ). Whether I'm liable to banishment for this
ungentlemanly attitude, I will leave it to the Moderator to decide ] The
doctor who did not detect malaria symptoms had of course  only an incidental
responsability in this affair.


>
>Denis said:
>>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. 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.


>Since instincto has only been around for a few decades, the above is
>more speculation than fact and maybe even instincto could do with a
>little fine tuning. A good reality check for me is when I see how many
>people seem to stabilize on diets much inferior to the instincto and
>managing to turn around their health in a relatively short time. It
>would help if you could define "normal attributes" and elaborate on
>what kind of results the "average" person who practices instincto - and
>stays with it - in your opinion can expect to have. Also,  the belief
>that it will take generations to repair the damage that an inadequate
>diet has caused could easily become a self-fulfilling limitation in
>itself.
The performance to be expected from this regime varies  greatly according to
the place of residence of the instincto, whether Denpasar, Bali  or
Cambridge, MA. Also on the individual understanding and will to abide by
one's instinct. So I fear no definite answer to your question. If
instinctive nutrition cannot do away with sclerosis and other degenerative
disease withina lifetime , why would it do away with malaria or other cases
in just one generation. "You need give time to Time" was former President
Mitterand's pet phrase .


>Denis said:
>>Personally when I hear that kind of argument, I do my best to change
>>the subject of the discussion.  I have _never_ talked to someone in 8

>This is very natural, and I think that if you instead of changing the
>subject try to fully meet & understand people's objections, they will
>be able to transcend them quite easily. I just recently spoke with
>somebody on the phone who had attended a week-end workshop with Bruno
(...)re eating more& more of it raw and one of them is already reporting
>some health benefits from this new addition to the diet.
>
I would not have written what I wrote hereabove  had I been American. You
have much more open mindedness than we have. People here are desperate when
they hear about changing the course of their life. Change is  what they are
the most averse to  .

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

>You have lost me here. What does the above mean?
The fact that parasites are not supposed to kill their host without the shit
hitting their own fan  has always been Burger's main argument for not
fearing parasites.


>Denis said:
>>That taste buds do not protect against many a parasitic infection ..
>>Our instinct does protect us, but our curiosity is often stronger than
>>our instinct...
>
>I guess you are you talking about instinctive eaters. I am convinced
>that humans will always remain inquisitive creatures in search of peak
>experiences and that curiosity will be a factor even for future
>generations of instinctive eaters.
All I'm saying is : there is good curiosity (tree climbing, moutain
climbing, checking out caves and shelters...) and bad curiosity (tasting non
smelling foodstuffs). It is my understanding that infants as well as animals
are pretty much immune against the kind of bad  curiosity which can
jeopardize their health.

>Kirt :
>>>There is some evidence that wild primates will "self-medicate" with
>>particular vegetation, apparently to purge intestinal parasites.

>Denis said:
>>I wonder if our beloved cousins  really follow your reasoning when
>>they wander in the quest for the miracle herbs and plants...
>>certainly true

>If instinct is so easily overridden by curiosity it sure waters down
>the concept quite a lot.

Yes instinct is easily overidden by curiosity and no ,IMO, it doesn't water
down the concept. We can thrive on a "limited variety" of raw foods
(Eskimos). Increase of the food spectrum during later stages of life is not
necessarily wanted or needed  from a physiological viewpoint, ONCE
sufficient variety has been secured. It has been demonstrated by
neurophysiologists that hedonic  reinforcement mechanisms  plsy an important
role in the regulation of the emotions. So why not for food ?

>Denis said:
>>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 .

>I assume this is because you do not believe that instinctos can achieve
>total immunity from parasites in one life-time? If so, does it not make
>it a little foolish to rely only on ones instincts on such a
>potentially delicate matter, and if it can improve somebody's condition
>why not lend Mother Nature guiding hand?

You will probably have noticed at this stage that I do not consider instinct
as a 100% safe guide in respect to parasites. So yes our reason might help
us avoid repeat other people's errors and we should not discard it. Again,
all I'm saying is the risk of falling prey to dangerous parasite infestation
is not minimum, provided animals are raised pr  in our but infinitesimal
compared to the advantages of eating RAF.

>Denis said:
>>I'M  FLABBERGASTED. You guys are talking as if you had been offered
>>the post of Prime Minister and were currently reviewing the pros and
>>cons of letting your former NFL allies get one or two minor positions
>>in your governemnt.

>That is too kind. The question is rather should we let them off on
>probation or persecute them to the full letter of the law.;-)

>Denis said:
>>Wake up guys. You are far away from the promised land.

No interest in this subject anymore.
But you are perfectly entitled  to police your own list

>Jean-Louis said:
>>I have never read about those studies, but the fact that a small
>>stature is an advantage does not seem obvious to me. After all, the
>>Homo Sapiens is much taller than the Australopithecus.

>Excellent argument.
It would rather seem to me that the late  evolution in size would go hand in
hand  with homo sapiens sapiens poor destiny.  The japanese people have
gained on the average 6/10cm during the XXth c, but I don't see how one can
say that their situation has improved. Except for the fact  that they now
have a basket ball team...

 I agree with you that small stature is probably not
>to our advantage. From page 96 of the "Paleolithic Prescription" by
>Eaton, Shostak & Konners": " It was once thought that , except for the
>Cro-Magnon's, our remote ancestors were short, much shorter than we are
>today.  However, the 1984 discovery of a nearly complete Homo Erectus
>skeleton, found in Kenya by a team led by Richard Leaky and Alan
>Walker, was that of a twelve-year-old boy whose projected adult height
>would have been 6'2". Intrigued, human paleontologists began to
>reexamine existing fragmentary remains of other early humans and found,
>much to their surprise, that their heights had been systematically
>underestimated."
>"The evidence now suggests populations until this century that
>preagricultural humans were essentially similar to us in height, or
>even slightly taller, for well over a million years, but after the
>appearance of agriculture inadequate, limited protein intake "dwarfed"
>most succeeding human

I do not adhere to this, even though I'm not an expert in paleoanthropology .
The Emory University guys talk about projected height and not real height,
based on age determination techniques which are considered as a hoax by
other  authorities in the same field of paleoanthropology  (the famous
fontanel technique). I would tend to think as the latter and I will
illustrate this point of view  with  a striking  example I found in the New
scientist .
Admirers of a very young french writer killed during WWI wanted to find his
body which had been buried "on the spot" during intensive artillerie combat
in order to give him decent sepulture. Along with this author there were
many many other people buried . So the poor guys were at a loss. They just
knew the age of the writer on the year of his death so they resolved to use
the fontanel technique. They gave an estimation of the age at death for each
of the skeleton they had unearthed. Happily enough only one of the skeleton
would have a skull correctly ossified. A few months later, by pure luck,
they discovered the dental record of the writer : so they  went back to
their labs and surprise, surprise the one skeleton they had  selected  for
its fontanelle did not show the correct teeth arrangement. They found the
correct skeleton had been misdated by four or five years. Four or Five years
for a skeleton which has been buried for eighty years only ! Make yourself
the kind of linear projection that EAton  did for his homo erectus , and
guess how far off the mark they are for a skeleton that's hundreds of
thousands of years old. A skeleton belonging to a proto-human having a food
record and hence ossification pattern record totally different from ours....
Sorry I cannot adhere to this kind of argument. Even reading the paragraph
you quoted, and the way it is worded, it smells like hype,  a pretext for
abusive generalization. And this thing about the "limited protein intake
dwarfing human beings" : they should go to Alaska where the Inuits have the
highest protein intake as a proportion of their global diet  and take a
measuring tape with them...   Cannot believe how those American scholars can
write such nonsense (not talking about the rest of the book which is
excellent).

Cheers
Denis