>At 09:41 03/03/1997 -0800, you wrote:
>>Peter concludes:
>>>If Schmid is on target regarding his caution on fresh water fish that
>>>along with the instincto malaria issue shows that there are a couple of
>>>exceptions to the beneficial microbe theory.
>>Kirt :
>>Perhaps your conclusion shows that in nature there will always be
>>exceptions to any theory one might construct about nature. This may seem
>>like a cop out, but it is not really.
>>(...)When the BMT starts to embrace the exceptions as well as the "proof" of
>>it's case, we will know it has matured in important ways. In other words,
>>when future Maximize Immunitys includes chapter(s) on counter-examples of
>>the BMT (such as malaria) it will be all the stronger and robust.
>Denis:
>Stop. Are you serious when you say that malaria is a counter example of the
>beneficial Microbe theory because one unfortunate twenty-four year old girl
>who had previously eaten cooked foods for eighteen years, and whose parents
>had been eating cooked foods since Methuselah, has died beacuse a doctor
>didn't recognize in her the fierce symptoms of a ternary or quaternary fever ?
Kirt:
Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Again like Burger's mushroom and berry
stories, your addition of details and clarification of the woman's death
leaves me even more aware of the limits of such ideas as the BMT. So she
was a 6-year instincto? And six years instincto will not protect one from a
fever death? Yeah, that's a counter-example to the BMT to me. Blatant and
outright. And then you go on to blame the whole thing on a medical
doctor!!! This, to me, is a example of some really intellectually dishonest
posturing. When there is trouble for an instincto, one hears the "excuses"
such as yours calling on our generations of denatured food history, our
personal denatured food history, but I must admit, blaming the medical
doctor is a new one on me...
I have heard that she is not the only instincto who had troubles with
malaria, that others (in Africa) ended up resorting to medical treatment as
well. How exactly are second and third generations of instinctos to evolve
if those beneficial microbes do in the first generation?
That the "Hemoglobin S" mutation (sickle cell) has occurred after
agriculture doesn't mean to me that denatured foods caused it, but as more
support that malaria may act as a serious exception to the BMT. Native
hunter-gatherers are not immune to malarial death. Yeah, none are eating
all raw, but given the fact that raw wild primates do have trouble with
particular viral schemes, I certainly am not going to argue that a
hypothetical "instincto ancestor" would find malaria to be a useful detox.
Are you?
>Beware of your self praised "anti-dogmatism". It should not blind you to
>the realities of our "degenerated" state -both physical and mental-.
It doesn't. And neither does it force me to "defend" a malarial death as an
example of the BMT by calling up the "trump card" of years/millenium of
denatured food. Such a tactic is as near to unfalsifiable as one can
get--except by looking at non-beneficial viral succeptability in wild
animal populations. Since raw wild nature is not an open and shut case of
support for instincto (practices _or_ theory) I am quite wary of blaming an
instincto's woes on their denatured history whenever they appear as
counter-examples.
>I often
>warn other crudivores that this thing about "complete detoxination after
>x,y,z, years" of raw diet/fasting... is just "hygienist" hype, being sold by
>the new merchants of "elixir of life". 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.
>Those who are not convinced should only read again Pottenger's Cats.
I agree whole-heartedly. Pottinger's Cats, while held up as proof-positive
of the efficacy of raw foods, is often ignored as to its message of the
limitations of a raw food "cure".
>My old uncle who studied medicine but never dared to become a physician,
>used to repeat to me every so often : "you sow the seeds of health before 7
>, and you eat whatever you've sown after 25 ". 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.
>
While it is likely _very_ true, I wonder how much comfort it provides
simply because it can serve as a catch-all excuse for anything less than
Perfect Health all the while "protecting" the BMT and the rest of instincto
theory.
>>Kirt :
>(...) (I have _never_ talked to someone in
>>8 eight years who didn't promptly bring up objections to RAF on parasitical
>>grounds. Never ever.)
>I've never ever met somebody who immediately raised the parasite argument
>and who, notwithstanding his former argument, has ever considered to try
>and check the diet for himself... Personally when I hear that kind of
>argument, I do my best to change the subject of the discussion. You simply
>cannot stand in the way of other people's fears, whether rational or
>irrational. You would be amazed by the number of people who think that all
>the good things that have befallen on men since the beginning of history is
>entirely due to the courage and determination of our ancestors
>(particularly in cartesian France...) . Our irreligious (I'd rather say
>anti-religious) world has obliterated the notion of Providence in
>everybody's mind, except amongst the learned and the savants. The very idea
>of instinct has disappeared from scientific theories at the asme time as the
>idea of a providential nature.
I find those very ideas making a big comeback in the form of evolutionary
psychology and (to a lesser developed degree) Darwinian medicine. Are these
new fields unknown so far in Europe?
>>Also, no one has yet stated the obvious, a parasite which quickly kills
>>it's host has some extraordinary problems of natural selection to overcome.
>
>Quite wrong. This used to be Burger 's main argument against parasites, as
>delivered in his two days "Cours d'introduction"
I was, of course, referring to the posts here on raw-foods on the parasite
thread, not everything ever written. Since the argument is so obvious it is
made all the time, and is hardly GC's personal property...
>>Peter :
>>>, so I choose to believe that when eating high
>>>quality raw animal foods, our taste buds will steer us away from any
>>>potentially dangerous servings.
>>Kirt :
>Hmmm...I don't, at least not as much as I'd hope I could. We have both
>>Vonderplanitz and Burger anecdotes about their taste failing to prevent
>>them from mushroom poisoning.
>That taste buds do not protect against many a parasitic infection is
>certainly true. But Burger would not have dared saying that tastebuds do not
>protect us against mushroom poisoning.
Of course not. Such an admission brings Burger's tightly-wound smell/taste
as Perfect Alimentation tumbling down--or so one suspects that's why he
wouldn't dare.
>This, in my view, is a biaised
>reading of the mushroom episode referred to by Mr TU. Our instinct does
>protect us, but our curiosity is often stronger than our instinct...
And our curious nature is in large part an instinctive mechanism.
"Defining" instinct and other terms on the fly seems to be a specialty of
instincto posturing...
>Kirt :
>>There is some evidence that wild primates will "self-medicate" with
>particular vegetation, apparently to purge intestinal parasites.
>I wonder if our beloved cousins really follow your reasoning when they
>wander in the quest for the miracle herbs and plants...
Of course not. But whether paraistes are purged with a strongly toxic
medicine or with clay or a particularly well-suited leaf/herb or with no
apparent active agent at all, the purging does hint that either the
parasite in no longer useful (BMT) or that it is _not_ useful period,
perhaps even dangerous (DMT). That instinctos are able to purge themselves
of parasites (on occasion) may be taken as support for either the BMT or
the DMT.
>Kirt :
>>If the BMT is at all times correct, how would such behavior be explained?
>There is
>>also the evidence of wild animal populations being quite harmed by viral
>>"sharing" (most importantly for our purposes, the gorillas/TB and
>>chimps/polio). This too, is not explained by the BMT and deserves
>>discussion in those "missing chapters".
Denis:
>You are hinting at the very reason why the scientific community will laugh
>at Comby's book, if they ever
>get a chance to read it. Reclassifying all detrimental parasites, microbes
>under the " beneficial" banner is too simplistic, naive, and
>anthropocentric a view of the microscopic world. 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 . However that is very much
>the impression a savant would get from reading his book.
Jeez, Denis. You should write your own book and set the world straight on
all these matters. If the scientific community laughs it with be for the
same arrogant reasons that you appear to be using. Cromby's book is the
best shot yet and readable by a layman to boot.
>One would have
>expected from a scientist of such high attainment as Bruno, a more balanced
>book, leaving some room for eventual refutation... or strenghtening. This
>in turn would probably have meant additional research for Bruno (of the
>kind not immediately available to him...), and would therefore have slashed
>in his otherwise extremely busy TV/Radio agenda.
As far as I am concerned Bruno need not write another word. Those like
yourself, however, might do well to set those savants, pendants, and other
learned fools who are so beneath you straight on all possible matters from
the superior stances of your Instinctive Life. "Every other person in the
world besides yourself" may not be the only one who is clueless...;)
>With a health and life insurance company of our own, we could devise means
>to trace all "diseases" and "bugs" threatening or incommoding the life of
>instinctos throughout the world. A project for year 2099...
Sounds like a humorous epitaph for your future tombstone!
Cheers,
Kirt
|