Robert Wynman <[log in to unmask]>:
>Whether the "supplement" is something the body needs (hence it's a food), or
>something the body doesn't need (hence it's a toxin, stimulant,  whatever)
>the BODY is still the entity doing the healing, not the supplement, yes?

Tom:
Yes, the body heals. The key question is whether herbs contain substances
(or energies) that assist healing. I say the answer is yes; the "ONLY self-
healing" crowd says no. One can argue that anything put in the body has
properties and effects, and a substance can harm (toxin), sustain (food),
or assist healing (herb=medicine). If herbs assist healing, it is not
100% self-healing.

Robert Wynman <[log in to unmask]>:
>By some measures, we are.  Is there truth to the statement that 30% of
>Canadian young couples who want to bear children are infertile & unable to
>make babies?  If true, how far along the Pottenger's cats experiment are we
>humans?

Tom:
The Pottenger's cat experiments are of limited value - the cats were fed
a monotonous diet of 1 kind of meat (muscle) and/or milk. The SAD diet,
as bad as it is, is much more diverse - that translates into two points:
1) the scope of the Potenger's cat study is very narrow (SAD is beyond the
range of the data collected),
2) the diversity of the SAD diet (and modern life) introduces a large
number of uncontrolled variables (covariates).
The result: Pottenger doesn't really mean much to the SAD person, but it might
be informative for raw mono-diet folks.

Robert Wynman <[log in to unmask]>:
>Them Instinctos would claim that forest fires, volcanoes, etc. are not
>frequent enough occorances to allow our ancestor's instincts to properly
>select or reject animals "cooked" thereby.  The beasts eating human garbage
>do so for the same reasons humans do; their instincts have not developed on
>cookled food & therefore can't protect them against it.  Seems to make a bit
>of sense?

Tom:
But our ancestors had more intelligence than the other beasts, learned to
control fire at some point, and were capable of cooking if/when they wanted
to. Maybe they actually liked cooked meat better than raw? If so, was it
instinct, or "cooked-food addiction" (a preposterous concept)?

Robert Wynman <[log in to unmask]>:
>I'll bet it was.  And good work, too.  I apreciate your efforts to bring a
>bit of sanity to this raw food subject.  Thank you!

Tom:
Thanks for your post and comments!

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]