Peter:
>> sustain themselves on today.  Logic follows that if this genetic
>> adaptation is a reality, a 100% raw diet would be inferior to a diet
>> that included at least small amounts of foods cooked. Cooking does
>> destroy many naturally occurring toxins & microbes in the foods and

Karl:
>I doubt this very much because I have seen that people who were ill
>when they still ate cooked get their symptoms back immediately if
>they eat only small amount of cooked food (or eat not-so-instinctively).

And if they were healthy? How about if they saw long-standing symptoms
relieved once returning to a bit of cooked? How about the ill folks who eat
instinctively and still get worse? You can't ignore some information on one
hand and perseverate on a subset of instincto experience on the other.

>I see now, that only small deviations from the instinctive rule lead
>to all kinds of problems. For me these are knee aches, pimples or a
>snuff. For others it might be a cancer or a neurodermitis that cause
>problems again.

And for still others it might be nothing, or even improvement. Who knows
for sure. I was under the impression that one of Burger's daughters (the
singer?) was anything but all-raw, that she avoided grains/dairy but ate
"socially" much of the time otherwise. Is she disease ridden yet? I'm sure
there are all sorts of ex-instinctos out there that you don't hear about at
all, Karl.

Dariusz:
>> How and why might the effects of cooked foods be more pronounced on
>> raw-fooders as opposed to people who eat cooked regularly?

Karl:
>the official Instincto answer :-) is that your body looses its tolerance
>to the toxins in cooked food. So it reacts much stronger. This will
>happen to you over and over again as your body gets more and more
>sensitive do denaturated stuff.

This puzzles me. If a substance becomes increasingly foreign to such a pure
body as ORKOS instinctos have, why would it cause such a bad reaction? Why
wouldn't the immune system simply do away with it. On one hand instinctos
claim that allergic reactions like hay fever go away after time and then in
the next breathe they point with pride to having a seizure when they eat a
slightly heated honey or a drop of the dreaded cow's milk is spilled on
their pants ;)

The whole bit about big reactions as proof of purity seems a bit much to me.

>It happened more than once to me that after a while I was no longer able
>to make some 'errors' that were possible before. So my own body leads me
>more and more into the direction of Instincto.

We'd need to do double blind studies with animals before we'll ever know
the extent of the placebo effect on those following idealistic diets.
Probably never happen...

Cheers,
Kirt