the following is long, and is a first draft. Feedback is welcome,
especially constructive suggestions. I have kept it together in one
article, for impact. It may be split into two parts for newsletter
publication - to be determined.

A few comments:

On both lists (veg-raw and raw-food): I am happy to discuss these
myths, but please realize that I have only so much time. I cannot
get involved in lengthy, detailed arguments with lots of people who
cling to some of the myths below.  I am happy to be a spectator
in such discussions, so don't be upset if I don't respond to your
post (others are free to respond to your questions). This is not an
effort to get the "last word" - it is a restriction on me (not you)
due to my limited time. (I will participate in discussions, within
the limits of available time.)

Also: the discussion of the myths are inter-related. Please read the entire
post before replying (on raw-food this post is split into 2, due to line
limit on each post; read both parts before replying). Your comments/questions
may be addressed later in the article.

For those who are new to my writings, I strongly recommend that you read
my "EXPO" posts, and the notes for my "problems" talk in the raw-food
list archives. (EXPO posts were made June 1 or 2, the "problems" notes
later in June.) The information in this post complements those posts.

On both lists: this is a long posting. Include in reply posts ONLY those
portions of this, that are relevant. Important: edit out ALL other, extraneous
material. My e-mail queue (and that of others) thanks you!

raw-food: the limit of 5 posts per day makes it even more difficult for me
to engage in long discussions on (so many) myths. Don't be offended
if I can't/don't respond to your post (but feel free to post anyway).

veg-raw: the myths below include some discussion of primate diets and
prehistoric diets, certain aspects of which are non-vegetarian. I considered
editing out those sections for veg-raw, but decided to leave them in.  I
do NOT advocate the consumption of animal flesh. However, I DO advocate
living in reality, and NOT in denial of reality as many rawists are. Please
keep an open mind as you read this. If those sections offend you, you can
skip them (or this entire post).  Detailed discussions of non-veg topics
are not appropriate on veg-raw. I request that discussions of non-veg topics
take place on on the raw-food list (only), or via private e-mail.

veg-raw: there is info on 100% raw in here - it's mentioned
in at least 3 places, (including 2 paragraphs near the end).

I hope you find at least some of the material below interesting!

P.S. it may be some time before later parts appear. I have titles/ideas
for more, but need to consider possible ways to organize the material
before writing. Later parts will hopefully be much shorter, than this
part.

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]

=================================================

Important Notice Re: Posting/Web Sites:

The material in this post is cleared for posting ONLY on/in:

the raw-food list and archive site(s),
the veg-raw list,
the NH M2M,
Chet Day's Health & Beyond: web site and newsletter,
the SF-LiFE newsletter
REAL News (Raw Energy and Alternative Lifestyle).

Permission to post on "raw" will NOT be granted. This is because I am not on
"raw", and do not want my writings posted where they may be attacked by
zealots. I hold no ill feelings towards the many decent people on raw; however
I don't want my work the target of what I consider to be dishonest criticism by
a few uncivil zealots. (Honest, civil criticism is welcome, of course.)

For permission to post/publish elsewhere, inquire before posting.
Thanks; your cooperation with the above is appreciated!

Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]

========================================================
SOME ESSENTIAL ADVICE FOR PEOPLE NEW TO RAW FOODS

PART 2: SELECTED MYTHS OF RAW FOODS

Copyright July 1997 by Thomas E. Billings. All rights reserved. Contact
author for permission to repost or publish.

This is the second part of a multi-part series, published on Internet
(the raw-food and veg-raw e-mail lists), and in the SF-LiFE newsletter.
The purpose of this part is to briefly list, and briefly debunk, some
of the more common myths found in the raw foods movement. Due to the
obvious space limits, the presentation here is a summary; much more
could be said regarding each myth. Indeed, for each myth, one can find
raw fooders who are emotionally attached to the myth, who will defend
the myth long after it has been discredited. Readers are thus warned,
that they may find portions of this to be challenging, or even
disturbing.

The reasons for doing this, can be illustrated with an analogy. You
have been given an old field, in which you want to plant crops. The
field is full of pernicious weeds. In order to plant your crops, you
must dig out and dispose of the weeds. The field is your mind and
lifestyle, the weeds are the myths that cloud your perception and make
your experience in raw foods less desirable, and less successful. The
crops to be planted are the honest approach to raw foods, and your life,
that this series will seek to promote.

In the following, "Myth" is abbreviated as M, "Reality" is R.

M: A raw foods diet will give you perfect health.
M: A raw foods diet will give you a perfect body.

R: The term "perfect health" cannot even be defined. Health has many
aspects, and we cannot make it well ordered, in an objective way. That
is, we cannot objectively say who is healthier: someone with a SAD
diet, poor physical health but good mental health, or a fruitarian
zealot with good physical health but who is hostile/mentally ill.
We can only be subjective about such things, and I would say that a
peaceful meat eater is healthier than a hostile fruitarian zealot!
(Why? Because it is easy to detox the body, hard to detox the mind.)

Of course, we cannot tell what a "perfect body" is, because no such
body exists on the planet. Perfection is a theoretical construct,
an unknown ideal. Personally, I would ignore anyone promoting the
idea that rawism will make anything about you, perfect. (See also the
section for the next myth.)

M: A raw foods diet will cure any/all diseases, and/or prevent any/all
   diseases.
M: Animals in the wild never get sick because they eat a natural, raw
   diet.

R: Let us consider the latter myth first. That myth will be addressed
further later; however, that myth was mentioned repeatedly in a recently
published rawist book. For the record: animals can and do succumb to
disease; it is a major cause of mortality. Studying animal diseases is
a major specialty area in biology. One can go to a good University
library and find numerous books on the subject. Additionally, there is
the simple fact that there is such a thing as "Veterinary Science",
which would not exist if animals never got sick. The people who repeat
this myth ad nauseum, in my opinion, are simply trying to get you to
believe a lie by repeating it often enough.

Some quick examples of animal diseases: hoof and mouth disease killing
bison in the U.S., and wildebeest in Africa; bubonic plague in rodents;
tick fever and Lyme disease in deer/antelope, and so on.

Now to the former myth: if animals living in the wild, eating a natural
diet, die of disease, why should human rawists be any different? Our
diet, even if raw, is "less natural" than the animals (as they eat wild
food, we eat cultivated foods). Also, there is the reality that raw
fooders can and do get sick. I have seen many rawists suffer from illness,
and cases can be read in the publication M2M and in some issues of the
"Health & Beyond" newsletter.

M: You will live longer on a raw foods diet.

R: Well, we certainly hope so!  On a more serious note, where are the
many (thousands) of long-time raw fooders above the age of 100, who would
be evidence that the claim might have some truth in it? They literally
don't exist. The longest-lived societies on this planet are not raw fooders;
in fact the longest lived societies are not even vegan.  There is a lesson
here for the raw foods and vegan egos, if we are open to receive it.

Also, we have the example of some long-time raw fooders passing away
"before their time" - T.C. Fry and Herbert Shelton.

One factor that is more relevant than longevity (assuming some minimum
longevity, i.e. that one survives to adulthood), is the quality of life.
It is in improving the quality of one's life that raw diets can be
very helpful.

M: A raw foods diet will improve your mental health.

R: In the short run, improvements in mental health (or attitude) are some-
times noted. However, it is my opinion/observation that the 100% raw diet is
correlated with serious mental problems, in the long run. There are a few
(very few) long time 100% raw people who are mentally healthy. However, it
is my opinion/experience that in the 100% raw category, one finds: full
scale eating disorders, and/or extensive eating disorder behavior,
unbelievably hateful zealots, lunatics, and people who appear to display
lesser mental impairments (such as: emotional fragility - just challenge
their diet and you may see this first-hand, juvenile behavior (denial of
aging), extreme environmental views, turning their diet - or 100% raw -
into a pseudo-religion, and so on.)

The topic of why so few 100% raw people are mentally balanced has been
discussed on the raw-foods e-mail list. It is my opinion/conclusion,
based on personal experience and observation, that a raw foods diet
does not improve mental health by itself; rather it simply brings your
emotional/mental problems to the surface, where all the world can see them,
and you can work on them. This is a difficult (and unpleasant)
experience for some.

The bottom line here: if you follow 100% raw for a long time (years), I
suggest that you take active steps to preserve your mental health.

M: Natural hygiene always works!

R: Sarcastic reply: yes, and you also believe in the Easter bunny and Santa
Claus?  Seriously, those who believe this need a reality check. No
system is perfect, on this planet. Nature itself is imperfect - a source
of considerable irritation for raw dogmatists, who try to explain nature
in simplistic/idealistic ways. I would ask those who believe this myth, to
make up their minds: is natural hygiene a science, or a religion? The proof
that natural hygiene doesn't always work can be found in the pages of M2M,
in the "Health & Beyond" newsletter, (6/94, 1/97 issues), and in the case of
Herbert Shelton, who suffered from Parkinson's disease for 10 years
before he passed away.

Note also that most other health systems are humble enough to admit that
some patients are incurable (often due to their attitudes).

M: Apes are fruitarians (or peaceful vegans).
M: Fruitarianism (or veganism) is our natural diet.

R: The above myths were debunked by Ward Nicholson, in a superbly
researched interview in "Health & Beyond" (10/96, 12/96, 1/97). That
interview is essential reading for all rawists. Also, there are two Paleodiet
e-mail lists on Internet that address this topic. The reality is that
all the large primates are omnivores, as they all eat insects and some
eat flesh. The chimpanzee society is marked by violence: war, incest,
murder, cannibalism. So much for "peaceful vegan" chimps! (A more
accurate description would be "occasionally violent, omnivore chimps".)

The fossil record clearly shows that our prehistoric ancestors were
omnivores; they ate both plant and animal foods. They were not vegans,
fruitarians, or even vegetarians.

P.S. 1) Some fruitarians are in denial regarding the above. Some fruitarians
try to counter the above with misinformation.  Be skeptical of counter-
arguments, and look up/check all references cited in counter-arguments!
2) Some conventional vegans have integrity and admit that, biologically,
humans are natural omnivores. See "The Vegan Handbook" for more info.

M: But mountain gorillas are vegans!

R: Not really; they have been observed deliberately eating weaver ants,
and they also consume considerable insects on the leaves that are the
major part of their diet. Given that many vegans reject honey, avoid
foods colored with cochineal (a dye made of ground insects), and get all
grossed out by descriptions of humans consuming insects (common in many
hunter-gatherer societies), it is reasonable to say that an ape that
deliberately eats ants is NOT a vegan, even if ants are a small part of
their diet.

M: The apes that eat meat are perverted.

R: Perversion is a human concept; nature simply IS, and wild animal
behavior simply IS. We can accept reality, or live in denial of it.
So, I would say that apes eating insects or meat, are simply following
their instincts. What is perverted here, in my opinion, is the obvious
denial of reality practiced by certain fruitarians (but the apes are
NOT perverted).

M: The only reason that chimps eat flesh, is because of habitat loss.

R: Given that much of the primate research is done in remote, undeveloped
wilderness areas, there is no evidence to support such a claim. Indeed,
the evidence from remote wildernesses directly contradicts the claim,
(as the claim suggests animal food consumption would occur only in
habitats near humans - that is not the case) and shows that consumption of
animal foods by chimps is natural. This is yet another example of denial of
reality.

M: Only one "tribe" of chimps in the whole world, eats meat.

R: False, as even a quick glance at the primate research literature
will show. Are those who make this claim, desperate?

M: Flesh eating by our prehistoric ancestors was the exception, rather
   than the rule.

R: Is there no limit to the denial of reality? One can subscribe to
two different e-mail lists on the Paleolithic diet, where one will
learn that the best estimates of the diet of our ancestors in pre-
historic times, is that they ate 50% of their diet in animal foods
(wild game). Clearly, 50% of the diet is hardly an exception.

A recent post on the raw-food list, cited evidence from modern hunter-
gatherer societies,  showing that animal food consumption ranged from
20-90% of diet, with an average of around 50%. So the evidence of modern
hunter-gatherers does not support the vegan position, either. (See also
Weston Price's book, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration".)

Side note: my objective here is to present reality, so that you are
not misled by those who are in denial of reality. I do NOT advocate,
or practice meat eating. One can accept reality, and still be a veggie!
I want you to openly, honestly accept reality, and not be misled by
phony models of nature/phony versions of "nature's laws". Also, a reminder
to vegans: compassion without integrity (honesty) is false and hypocritical;
it is not real compassion.

M: Mucus is toxic.
M: All disease is due to accumulation of toxemia/mucus, caused by
   eating the "wrong" foods.

R: Here mucus is made into a demon, without justification. Mucus is an
essential bodily fluid; without mucus, your stomach acid would dissolve
your stomach, and without mucus, your eyes would not function - you could
not see. Of course, one can have too much mucus. However, what is happening
here is that some people think all mucus is toxic - a delusion.

Mucus is not the only bodily "toxin"; for example the system of Ayurveda
takes a broader view of toxins, which are known as ama. Ama can take
different forms, e.g. vata - the toxic gases of flatulence in your colon
(said gases can go into solution in your bloodstream and lymph), pitta -
excess liver bile which, believe it or not, can escape your intestines and
cause problems, and kapha - excess mucus, cholesterol, and similar "sludge".
So, claiming that all mucus is toxic, or that mucus is the only toxin, is
a narrow/inaccurate view.

The examples that disprove that all diseases are due to toxins are:
- any/all deficiencies, such as vitamin B-12 deficiency in raw food vegans
- anorexia nervosa, the illness of excessive fasting.
Additionally, most genuine holistic systems say that diseases are often
caused by mental and spiritual factors. From that view, raw foods diets
that only remove the  physical toxins are, like Western medicine, an
allopathic system (i.e., the physical toxins are a symptom of the underlying
mental/physical causes). Raw food diet = *allopathic* system. Interesting!

M: All health problems you experience on a raw foods diet, are due to
   detox of stored poisons.

R: This is a dangerous delusion, one that guides some people to real harm.
If a disorder is caused by detox, then the disorder should get somewhat
better as time goes by, as your detox process continues. If that does not
happen, then the disorder is not connected with detox, and may be a
deficiency or a real disease. Also, I would strongly advise anyone with
serious health problems (especially acute problems), to consult (as soon
as possible) a qualified health professional. Don't assume it is detox,
and don't sacrifice your health/well-being on the alter of rawist dogma!

M: Fasting can cure any/all diseases.

R: Fasting can be a very powerful healing and cleansing tool. That said, it
is not a cure-all. Fasting cannot cure anorexia nervosa, the disease of
excessive fasting. Fasting can cause a psychological sense of deprivation,
which can cause one to grossly overeat after a fast. This can lead one
to a cycle of fast-overeat, or starve-binge. If that becomes habitual, it
is a form of bulimia. Fasting can also aggravate other eating disorders.

Moderate fasting can increase your digestive fire - a blessing for some,
and a serious problem for others. Improper fasting can loosen body
toxins, then drive them deeper into the tissues - a lose-lose situation.

Fasting is a powerful medicine, to be taken in the right dose, as
needed. However, please note that most (not all) people can do short
fasts (1 day), without any problems.

M: Fasting will make you spiritually purer.

R: Many world religions use fasting as a tool for spiritual advancement.
The primary motivation of fasting for spiritual goals, is that it
clears the mind somewhat and may motivate or inspire people to do other
spiritual practices. However, many spiritual leaders warn that the
"spiritual" feelings one gets from fasting are temporary and illusory,
and should not distract one from the real, serious spiritual practices.
Real progress comes from other spiritual practices, not fasting. You
cannot fast - or eat - your way into heaven or enlightenment!

Further, the religions that use fasting, also warn against excessive
fasting.  Excessive fasting is considered "mortification of the flesh",
and is regarded as inappropriate behavior.

M: You should only eat those foods which you can gather with your bare
   hands, while naked.

R: With apologies to author Desmond Morris, I will refer to this as the
"naked ape" hypothesis. The above myth is often repeated, with religious
fervor, by some raw fooders.

Problem: this myth is a denial of reality, and a denial of your true
nature. The very definition of human beings specifies, among other things,
that we are intelligent tool users. Those who promote this myth are denying
the use of tools, and they are denying our intelligence; hence they are
literally in denial of their true nature. To deny tool use is to make us
lower than the chimpanzees (who have been observed using sticks as tools to
eat termites, a common food for them).  It lowers modern humans to below the
level of Australopithecus, one of our prehistoric ancestors who was very
ape-like. So, this myth can be seen as an insult to humanity, or a denial of
our humanity, in a sense.

Aditional problems:
- one can find rawists promoting this myth on computer networks. How
would naked apes make computers?
- the myth is often used to justify fruit as your natural diet. However,
modern fruitarians don't eat wild fruit - they eat grafted, budded,
cloned fruit. I'd like to see a naked ape, without tools, accomplish
grafting or budding. (Of course, it cannot be done - hence the hypocrisy).
- as one who has extensive experience in picking fruit, both wild and
cultivated, I can attest that the idea of naked people picking fruit is
both unrealistic and hilarious. I'd like to see naked people, without tools,
successfully harvest a large blackberry patch that is full of thorns, wasps,
fire ants, and with a healthy inter-growth of poison oak or poison ivy.
Picking fruit is hard work, especially wild fruit, and requires protective
clothing and tools, if one wants to be efficient at it. Those without
tools or clothing, will pick very little fruit (and those who limited their
diets to fruit picked under such conditions, would quickly starve themselves
into extinction, in evolutionary terms).

** Continued in Part 2...