>> My impression from the english translation of Burger's Manger Vrai was that
>> he did eat some "poison" mushrooms at that test that were only OK and that
>> there were some consequences which he didn't detail. He seemed to be kind
>> of apologizing for the event, not really boasting of his success. I'll have
>> to take another look at it...

>Actually, the original text is not absolutely clear.

Whenever Burger wants to be clear he is clear; If he isn't , that means
there is something in the wind...

>Burger says that he should have been repelled by the not really pleasant
smell of the amanita, but he tried because of his (human) curiosity

Notice the  important word : "curiosity".

> the more he chew it, the more its taste became ugly.
>Then, he says "je n'ai pas poursuivi l'experience" (he didn't continue
>that experience).

He didn't say how many times he had to rince his mouth... Is this story true
or only half true. I'm not sure. i've heard people say that there are
exaggerations  in Burger's book, one of these  being the extent of his
so-called experiments on mice when he was living  in Switzerland. But here
again it's only hearsay.

>So, his point of view is that, if one is careful enough and really
>listens to its instinct, there shouldn't be any danger of poisoning,
>but he warns us that, unless we are truly experienced instinctos, we
>should avoid eating unknown mushroom

Ok but your explanation misses one of the main source of theoretical
misunderstanding on instinctive nutrition. I think Burger mentions it in his
book, but IMO, he should have set it out more at lenght.
The principle is "neophobia", a behaviour related term which designates the
attitude of free ranging animals in front of novel, unknown foods.
"neophobia" or "fear of novelty" , suspicion, cautiousness. We human beings
are so much used to take profit of anything that looks like edible that we
tend to view instinctive nutrition as a theory which forbids us swallowing
foodstuffs which are repellant to either one of our sense of smell and
taste.  Whereas in natural like conditions, animal not only eschew bad
smelling/tasting foods but also NON SMELLING- NON TASTING FOODS, for they
are potentially as dangerous as the first category.

This is the hidden sense of the word "curiosity". Curiosity (as used by
Burger in this context)  is a vice which can bring serious trouble. We
should swallow food only when all the lights are green. And absence of
light, as well as red light, means danger.
This in turn doesn't mean you should not try out new foods which are
odiourless:tasteless, if you are sure from other people's experience that
they are perfectly edible. As you know, neurophysiologists have hypothesized
that the sensual image of the food, which determines our future perception
of the same, is not complete before the first intake of that food has gone
thru the complete metabolic process. So no wonder we may be sensually
"blind" to foods we have not tasted before.

Now I can see the next question coming up : if one has to rely on other
people's knowledge of edible/non-edible, what is the purpose of pretending
we have an instinct ?
Rest assured, young man. There is a behaviouristic answer to that question
in ethological litterature, but I need to go to bed...
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 )
First good answer wins a one day stay at my house near Disneyland, Paris,
including a roller coaster ride with Snow White (forget the dwarfs).
Alternative programme : a visit to the Castle of the Cracked Guru and his
half-dozen Nuts in nearby Montramé.

Cheerio
Denis