Hi Liza,

This one will take me all night to answer I should think.

> effects, diahhreah or otherwise. How would you explain this? And I think I
> remember also mentioning a number of other animals (our goats and pigs) who
> drank cow's milk. Why would this be so?
>
Most mammals rely on taste and smell and often also the lessons of
their parents and can thus be just as fooled by the taste and smell
of "foreign" protein as we humans.

All animals > > And hedgehogs,
> > for example, which certainly eat plenty of animal protein, will
> > drink it willingly and die from it within a very few days.
>
> I had not heard of this before - have you actually seen this happen?

Yes...and any vet will confirm. Better to feed them rainwater and
catfood than to give them milk.

 And if
> it does,
> why would a hedgehog do such a thing, do you think?
>
> Alan said,
> > I fail to see how these ratios were calculated?? Since when is, as
> > > > in Colby, for example, 685 Ca and 457 P a ratio of 1.5???
>
> Jean-Louis,
> > 1.4989059080962800875273522975929978118161925601750547045951859956236323851
> > >20350109409190371991247264770240700218818380743982494529540481400437636
> > > 76148796...(and then the decimals are repeated: 498905...)
> > >
> > > that's approximately 1.5--up to an error of 0.07%.
>
> Alan,
> > Such a method of calculating a "ratio" is both misleading and tells me
> > nothing.
>
> Liza,
> Alan I don't understand your confusion here. What Jean-Louis provided for
> you here is not only truly funny, but it is also a correct way to express
> the number
> 685/457. What other way are you thinking of?
>
If two gentlemen and one lady were the first to show up at a dance,
the ratio of males to females would be 2:1. To get back to calcium,
phosphorus and magnesium, the ratio of calcium (per 100 mg or whatever)
to both of the other two should also be 2:1. It is easier to calculate
this way rather than with miselading percentages.

> > If Jean-Louis or yourself are implying that the atrocities ordered by
> > by Hitler had anything to do with vegetarian,
>
> No, I certainly wasn't saying anything at all like that, and I don't think
> Jean-Louis was either. The reason I was amused at this interesting tidbit,
> is that one often hears the very nonsensical pro-vegetarianism argument
> that meat-eating makes people more aggressive while vegetarianism makes
> people peace-loving. So it will be useful to be able to point out that
> Hitler certainly doesn't fit that theory.
>
> > Just because I as an Englishman
> > happen to live in Germany, does not automatically mean that I in
> > some way sanction what Hitler did.
>
> You seem to have taken off on your own tangent here, unrelated to the topic
> of discussion, which no one else on the list appeared to have been
> addressing in any way. I really don't think that anyone was pointing
> fingers at you, or at Germans for that matter, for anything at all,
> including whatever Hitler did.
>
> > The fact remains,
> > however, that most of the Germans alive today were not alive then,
>
> Is that true? WWII Seems like such a short while ago. I'm not familiar
> enough with the demographics, but it would seem that those young German
> soldiers who had been in the war would today be in their 70's maybe?
>
It would perhaps seem that way....but many of them were killed either
in battle or in incarceration or as a result of an execution.

> > still eat a lot of meat, totally reject the death penalty and totally
> > reject any armed intervention in foreign countries.
>
> Are these things you say confirmed by opinion polls and so on?

They most certainly are and the polls have led to a situation where
a German can now choose to be a conscientious objector without having
to undergo an exhaustive test. In addition, all the political parties
are against any armed combat in foreign countries whatever is going on.
IOW, despite the fact that Germany is a member of NATO (and also
expected to play a role in UN actions), the only role they are
prepared to play is a supportive one.

> much about contemporary German culture. I do have a few German friends,
> though, who tell me that WWII weighs very heavily on the collective German
> conscience, and that it is only beginnning to become "safely distant"
> enough from that terrible time, for open public discussions to start on the
> real psychological effects on the German people of having participated in
> committing such acts of evil, or passively turning a blind eye. I was told
> that the country is in some ways still "shell-shocked."
>
Who (in his/her) right mind wouldn't be shocked? They and (I) are
also equally shocked that countries like the U.S.A. (many states)
still sanction and carry out the death penalty (even using gas
chambers or lethal injections etc.).

But let's drop this as we are wandering off topic.

> > .... But seriously, why is this argument always made in this way? Who said
>  we'd
> > > have to actually suck the teats of the animal, in order to get the milk?
>
> You said:
> > Did early man have milking machines? .... How
> > else would you get at the milk???
>
> Milk by hand!?!?!
>
> Alan I'm confused. Why would you be thinking that people'd be more likely
> to drink the milk right out of the animal, rather than milking into a
> vessel and drinking from this?
>
You have to get the milk into the vessel first. ;-)

> > If people went around drinking mothers' milk after being weaned
> > off, they would most likely ... experience the
> > same problems ...... as those drinking
> > the milk of a cow (which is meant to support the much higher and
> > faster growth rate of calves).
>
> Huh??????
>
> Which problems are you referring to? Lactose intolerance, and allergic
> reaction to proteins found in cow's milk?
>
Yes.

> > Some domesticated (and even some wild) animals can be induced to
> > drink milk..as the smell is right.
>
> What does that mean, that the "smell is right?" Why would the smell be
> right, if it's not a good food for them? This doesn't make sense.
>
If the smell is right they'll taste a bite...just as humans do. Animals
in the wild are not, however, normally confronted with milk, or
cookies or chocolates etc..

> > Humans get their calories from carbohydrate foods ... (i.e. foods
>  containing simple > sugars). Meat (i.e. the
> > saturated fat in meat) is neither healthy for the human system
> > and nor is it a good source of energy.
>
> Where did you get your information? I think you need to study up on your
> science a little! :)
>
> (By the way, fat is actually the SUPERIOR energy source, providing 9
> calories per gram, versus the 4 calories provided by carbohydrate.)
>
Perhaps you ought to pay a visit to a gym, or ask Arnold Schwarzenegger
or any professional cyclist or other athlete. They wised up years ago
on the fact that carbohydrates (simple sugars) means energy and aminos
(not in the form of meat) means muscle (forgetting steroids of course).

> The statements above are solely an expression of your opinions, Alan. And,
> from
> what you have written, you evidently believe that everyone must be a
> vegetarian in order to be healthy.

Wrong. I believe "I" must be a vegetarian to be healthy. I have already
stated the reasons why I don't eat meat and that I have nothing
against anyone else eating it if they believe it is doing them good.
Don't put words in my mouth Liza.

>There is no evidence to support such a
> claim.
>
Well I'm not going to write another exhaustive list of quotes on
research projects (I did that last night on milk). If you can't
find (or don't want to find) any quotes in the net then perhaps
you ought to use a better search engine or refine your search
methods. Personally, however, I prefer to listen to my own body
in the first instance and also the experiences of others in our
group (at least I know they are genuine..a point which Tom
Billings quite rightly made).

> > Fasting does not make you
> > hungry (your presumption) for anything..if done properly it makes
> > you hungry for nothing.
>
> Actually, during the fast one may in fact feel no discomfort, like you say.

I have NEVER said that a faster will feel no discomfort. The detox
(which usually sets in around the second day) is at least something
like a hangover for most. Most start feeling better on the third day
and beyond.

> Or one might feel nauseated and a revulsion to food.

I haven't heard this reported here....merely a total loss of
appetite.

>Then again some people feel hungry and miserable and obsessed with
>hallucinating about food for the entire length
>of the fast.

This is reported by all for the first day only..and reported by none
on the days thereafter. Feeling hungry and miserable is only
reported here when people fast on juices and/or soups rather than
just plain, clean water.

> It's completely different for everybody.

You may be talking about addictions...or perhaps cravings (such as for
chocolate) is a better word. We have isolated reports of people not
loosing their craving for chocolate, for example, during a fast. On
the other hand, we have also reports of people who say they lost such
cravings altogether during a fast. In this respect I would agree that
some people are different...but not everybody and not even the
majority.
>
> My comments, however, were aimed at your earlier statements about the
> ability of a
> fast to help people make a transition to a raw foods diet, in which you
> said that the fast would make a person not want to eat anything but raw
> foods once they resumed eating.
>
I DID NOT SAY that a fast would make a person not want to eat
anything but raw foods. You are again misquoting. I said that fasting
makes the transition to raw foods easier because it makes them taste
better from the word go (i.e. after the fast). It also makes
chocolate etc. taste better of course. The point is simply that if
someone WANTS to make the switch to raw then fasting will make it
easier (and also reduce the initial bowel discomfort BTW).

> This is simply not the case. I wanted to make clear that the period
> following a fast is in fact a dangerous period, in which, both for
> psychological reasons (some of which are VERY deep-seated, instinctual
> almost) as well as for physiological reasons, a person is
> very much tempted to eat ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, raw and otherwise. One
> must therefore be very careful to resist this urge which could easily land
> them in a hospital with all sorts of serious digestive, allergic, edema,
> and other complications.
>
I couldn't agree with you more (see above)

> So I would strongly disagree with your statements about the fast being a
> good way to transition to an all-raw diet.

A fast is still the best (and recommended by us) way to make the
switch.

> (Whether or not one would even
> desire to be on an all raw diet is a separate issue).
>
You have to desire this of course.

> > As to malnourished people...a two week fast will certainly help
> > them to detox their eating mistakes and is thus still healthier
> > than continuing to eat as before.
>
> ???????
>
> Malnourished is a very big word, Alan!!
>
> How about those who are malnourished through starvation, for instance?

What kind of a twisted argument is that?? If people are starving they
have no access to either raw or cooked. And if they are starving
despite having access to raw (even raw edible wild plants) then they
don't need to be (if someone would just point out this source).

> There are plenty of people in the city where I live (Washington DC) who are
> starving to death through poverty, or the neglected elderly, or those with
> cancer, diabetes and other degenerative diseases, anorexics, just to name a
> few that pop up immediately. None of those I've mentioned here, for
> instance, would do well at all on a fast!!
>
Another twisted argument. Starving people are fasting and thus meet
all the prerequisites for converting to raw (if they have or can afford
a source of course.

> I think it's a little irresponsible to make such wild generalizations.
>
It is irresponsible of you Liza to use this type of twisted
argumentation and hence utterly confuse people. The medical docs
tewnd to do the same, but at least they are honest enough to want
to make a continued good living out of the chronically ill rather
than loose revenue by making people healthy again (they prefer to
treat uncomfortable symptoms rather than address the cause of an
illness).

> That was meant to be a joke, Alan.

OK I will accept it as that. :-)

> If you would have taken a look at the archives of posts over the last month
> or so, you would have seen a longish discussion in which one person seems
> to feel that everything in the world is judged by his refractometer. (In
> reality all a refractometer is able to measure is sugar content, so even
> the relative merits of coke and pepsi can be judged using a refractomer, as
> was pointed out.)  :D
>
I see nothing wrong with using a refractometer to assess the quality
of similar foods (like specific ripe organic fruits from different
regions or soils) which are known to be healthy anyway. People who
make comments like the "coke" one you mentioned above are either
juvenile (in which case one can excuse their immature logic) or
else hardly credible. Kirlian photography is an even better
method...as is being demonstrated here in Germany by Professor Popp.
Until Popp looked into it, it used to be dismissed as mumbo jumbo
or belonging in the realms of esoterics (which is also mumbo
jumbo). The "aura" (energy field) which is photographed (the mere
fact that this field can be photographed with a special camera is
proof that it exists..and was what got Popp interested in the first
place) is larger in fruits and veggies with more vitality, i.e.
the fresher the better, and also larger in fruits from organic
soils rather than from conventional large-scale farming. The
final proof of quality (which can be confirmed by lab measurements)
is that the diffence in the quality of "high-quality" fruits can
be demonstrated. The only drawback is that a Kirlian camera is
rather expensive for the normal "man in the street".

> I had said:
> > > Realize that you are talking to a potentially VERY wide audience, with
>  your
> > > statements here.
>
And I would say to them (as I say to you), if they misread then it
is not my fault. If they fail to understand then they should ask.
I try to keep my posts as "unscientific" (from the point of
view of terminology) as possible for this very reason (and get
repeatedly clouted by the scientists for "sounding like a layman".
You can't win either way. What may be interesting to you and others
in here BTW, is that, despite attempts by the medical industry to have
it banned, a book which slags the medical profession like no other
and which openly says that vegetarianism (raw fruit and raw wild
plants in this case) will help to cure cancers, problems with the
immune system, rheumatism, obesity, allergies and numerous chronic
illnesses (on the title page!) is extremely successful (now the
fourth edition and again sold out) and has resisted all attempts to
ban it. The findings and quotes are so so well founded that the docs
are unable to provide any credible counterarguments. They have merely
countered by adding a three month!!! study course on natural medicine
to their university curriculum so that they can call themselves
"Dr. of medicine and natural medicine" and hence get more patients.
The "natural medicine" that they "study" is homeopathy. LOL.

The book that I am talking about BTW is "Der Grosse
Gesundheits-Konz" (by our member and current president Franz Konz).
It is currently only in published in German (but he has plans to
publish a shorter version in English).

> And you said:
> > Oh...I didn't realise that so many people wanted to detox
> > and/or convert to raw.
>
> What I mean is that many people are (or will be) reading this. They will
> take bits and pieces of information from it, to help them think about
> their, and other peoples' health and diets. There may be people with all
> sorts of special conditions and illnesses that you are not familiar with,
> including eating disorders, who may be in many different environments abd
> living under many different circumstances than you can possibly be aware of
> at this moment.
>
Exactly what the docs say...but the argumentation doesn't hold (see
above).

> So you have a responsibility maybe bigger than you realized, to not make
> false statements or huge generalizations about any one diet being
> applicable to "all" people. People are as different as their faces.

I carry no responsibility as I only talk about my experiences and
the experiences of the group to which I belong (as well as the
experiences of non-members who read the journals of this group and
choose to follow any advice. I have been in Internet (and FIDO)
for years and nobody has as yet suffered from my posts (except
perhaps a few dental problems from gritting their teeth to often).

> > Only the body (the immune system) can "cure" anything
>
> Ah! And I would like to think that Natural Hygienists are among the more
> rational, reasonable, friendly types in the alternative-diet world. You are
> doing a disservice to Natural Hygiene, and as a supporter of much of NH
> philosophy, I'm embarassed.

As I said in earlier posts, I respect the founders of this group, and
reject the current lot (i.e. both in Germany and the USA) as a bunch
of money-making phoneys. Trade unionists used to be honest people
too.

> This little "mantra" above comes from older NH philosophy. However, it is
> childish and simplistic, if taken blindly, in the black-and-white way you
> are taking it above, and contemporary hygienists would readily agree about
> this.
>
Lost the thread here.

> The truth is that the body cannot in fact "cure" everything. Medical
> intervention is most definately necessary under many circumstances. It is
> utter foolishness to try to claim otherwise.
>
I never did. If you are talking about severe wounds, I would agree
entirely (although there are still many NH fanatics who would
even disagree here). As to bacterial and virus attacks, my statement
remains true. As to cancers (usually not present in a healthy
body) raw food can act as preventative medicine as well as a
treatment (as Franz Konz himself demonstrated, with medical
certificiation). Wounds are not "cured", they "heal" (if you're
lucky and they are not too serious).

> Bonnie's post was an attempt to question your assertion that a fast would
> "cure" Herpes, and you have responded with this evasive euphemism about the
> body curing, and so on. Bonnie is in fact right that a fast will NOT "cure"
> (use "rid" if you don't like the word "cure") a person of Herpes.
>
I have replied to Bonnie on this and still maintain that fasting will
"cure" (i.e. immobilize) the Herpes virus. Don't ride on it..try
it and see for yourself (whoever may have it).

> Bonnie said:
> > > In my opinion, this could only be done with a combination of efforts,
>  fasting
> > > being one of them, improvement in diet, supplements, exercise and maybe
>  even
> > > herbs!
>
> You said:
> > Leave out the supplements and herbs (unless they are non-toxic,
> > edible raw plants which should be a part of any raw vegetarian diet), add
> > exposure to sunshine and happiness and peace of mind and I would agree
> > entirely.
>
> Alan, these words are just an unoriginal repitition of NH dogma. There are
> many on this list who are very familiar with NH, some who think well of it,
> and others who can't stand it. It would be nice, however, to see original
> thinking about health, instead of just a repetition of the "company line."

Whereas I agree with you in principle, the NH people (at least most of them
and certainly most of the founders and pathfinders) are still correct on
this count. It is not a dogma it is a truth.

> And in fact, current NH thinking, which continues to evolve as more
> discoveries and deeper insights are made into human nutrition and health,
> now includes the uses of herbs, supplements and even <gasp!> pharmaceutical
> drugs, in some circumstances.

That's why we left them to form a splinter group. Add the Hopi candles,
Bach Blossom Therapy, esoterics and other mumbo jumbo and you have
a fairly accurate description of the way they are now.

> Alan, have you looked at the list archives? You will find there many
> discussions that cover in depth some of the subjects you've brought up.
>
Are YOU (or anybody else) bringing up subjects which are not in the archives
Liza? My personal opinions and comments are certainly not in those archives.
Would you wish to banish me there? ;-)

Best regards,

Alan