Here follows Kirt's response to Aajonus Vonderplanitz.

>Hi Aajonus!
>I surely and truly didn't think that seeing my "review" would shock
>you. Really. Though it sounds like I may now well be on your "avoid
>list" I do want you to know that I have no hostility, "ulterior
>motives", or naughtiness to direct towards you. I am only interested
>in a dialogue with you, since, as I noted repeatedly in the post, I'm
>intrigued by your experiences.
>You have much to share with heath-seekers of all kinds and I hope you
>can see somhow that I was not attempting to upset you at all. It was
>meant to pique the interest of other raw-fooders, in order that your
>message would be more widely heard...

Aajonus said:
>>Kirt, you naughty individual, your review revealed to me that you did
>>not read WE WANT TO LIVE thoroughly and you lacked some important
>>comprehension.

Kirt said:
>I did read it thoroughly. Indeed, I was rivited. Of course, I can not
>claim complete understanding and welcome your clarifications.

Aajonus said:
>>You misstated, extrapolated and sometimes misquoted my
>>book and work at least six times in approximately two pages. You even
>>misspelled my name repeatedly. Worse, you gave advice about it (raw
>>butter/UNHEATED honey mixture) based on your personal experience,
>>concepts and negative view of my theoretical explanations.

Kirt said:
>I will always approach new information based on my personal experience
>and concepts. But I can and do apologize for the unfortunate
>misspellings.

Aajonus said:
>>Kirt, you hadn't studied and digested the material, investigated
>>the results from people who had successfully achieved health, and
>>reversed terminal diseases, or even experimented for yourself.

Kirt said:
>I read and considered every word in your book, which was the subject
>at hand. If there is more information available about your work I am
>very interested in obtaining it. How would I go about investigating
>your results? I am very interested in doing so. As for experimenting
>myself, it simply isn't clear to me how I would do that. You gave many
>recipes along the way, but the plain details of what to eat is not
>clear to the reader. Since I suffer from none of the afflictions you
>list, I am unable to give your specific recommendations regarding
>their reversal a try.

Aajonus said:
>>I was quite shocked. I wrote the book so that the non-academically
>>minded could understand. However, perspectives that are not framed
>>within our common scientific structure, with explanations that seem
>>so foreign as to be mythical, may non-the-less be accurate. Many
>>theories that initially seemed far-fetched were true. Whether my
>>explanations and my colleague's are more or less accurate than
>>established reasoning remains to be experienced.

Kirt said:
>I appreciate that you were writing for a lay audience. Still, you seem
>to be replacing the medical dogma with notions about, say, blood types
>(which can shift during one's life) and then refer to them as holding
>xplanatory power. In order that even the lay reader can respect such
>xplanations they need to be layed out in more detail. If you expect
>nything but dismissal from the scientific world (who will hopefully be
>nterested in your results regardless of your explanations) you w>ill
>lso need to provide falsifiable explanations. I am much more
>nterested in the details of your program and our stunning results than
>n your reasonings, though, as I noted in the review, I am intrigued by
>hem as well!

Aajonus said:
>>Unless the day arrives when we communicate with cells,
>>vitamins, enzymes, et al, we will never know their intents and actual
>>functions. Until then we surmise.

Kirt said:
>Perhaps this is what lead to my confusion. Your theoretical
>explanations ounded very much more like "here is the truth" than
>"surmisings". If they were preceeded with, "I have come to think of it
>in terms of..." or even "Perhaps, it could be seen as..."--that type
>of thing--then I doubt that I would see them as "wholesale additions
>to medical myth". In other words, I found that you simply overstated
>them as confirmed truth when they are only your working hypotheses.

Aajonus said:
>>What remains true is that every diet has positive results for
>>somebody in some way or they wouldn't be pursued for long, with or
>>w/o side effects.

Kirt said:
>I repeat, I am _very_ interested in your positive results.

Aajonus said:
>>Did your review elevate tragedy to comic relief? Or did it
>>ridicule a tragic-life-turned-good?

Kirt said:
>If it did, I apologize. You are to be commended for your sterling
>efforts, and I should have said so explicitly in the review. I am just
>not swayed much by testimonials--perhaps it is part of the burn-out of
>having read so many in the raw foods arena that I have become jaded to
>a degree. It tells more about me than about your book: I apologize.

Aajonus said:
>>If it is fact that instincto is
>>superior and can be framed in scientific terms that meet your
>>cerebral criteria, why does instincto have such a high attrition rate
>>of, I was told by Ron Strauss, 98%?.

Kirt said:
>As I mentioned to you privately, Bruno Cromby confirms this sad
>statistic.

Aajonus said:
>I am unaware of saying that instincto is superior to your mixed
>approach. Indeed, I think instincto "explanations" suffer in the same
>way that some of yours do. In fact, I noted at the end of the review
>that "A non-instincto take on RAF is always interesting to someone
>like me who is steeped in instincto lore." I used the word "lore" to
>imply that I am probably wearing some sort of blinders after years of
>considering instincto explanations as Truth...

Kirt said;
>>My predominantly
>>raw-food(80-100%)/instinctive/intuitive/rational omnivorous approach
>>loses only 23% of those who actually try it for at least 30 days.

Aajonus said;
>This is indeed stunning news, and with such a success rate the medicos
>will have a very hard time ignoring your work.
>>I am 99.999% raw. I average eating one cooked starch a month, when I
>>feel I need it for reasons stated in my book.

Kirt said:
>I am not sure that all-raw is the be all and end all of food intake. I
>am most intrigued by your bread-eating experience, since I
>(intellectually) consider bread to be among the least natural foods.
>So when I hear of someone with vast raw experience finding it useful,
>my ears perk up. I question your explanation, but not your experience
>at all!

Aajonus said:
>>To inform readers who have not read my book but have read Kirt
>>review of it (4 February), the extrapolated paragraph that began
>>The thought of delicious, heavily buttered garlic bread...
>>exists to reveal my early stages of climb into raw-foodism,
>>instinctive considerations and confusion about how much raw-food was
>>correct (1969). I was pioneering on my own. I had no references
>>to guide me into raw foods as you have been fortunate enough to have
>>had.

Kirt said:
>All the more reason that I value your incredible path and discoveries!

Aajonus said:
>>I did not commit to completely raw until 1972. I added a little
>>cooked grain and potato starches in 1986. If read thoughtfully, my
>>book has usually been easily understood. There is so much information
>>in it that anyone who races through it is likely to misconstrue,
>>misinterpret and lose significant info (as in the review).

Kirt said:
>With all the flashbacks, it is kinda hard to know when a scene is
>taking place. Nevertheless, I did realize that it was early on. But
>whether from decades ago or hours ago, the bread quote remains
>intriguing to me. In fact, I was hoping to maybe hear more about the
>value you find in bread, not to belittle you (or anyone else who is
>eating it) but because I'm interested! I don't doubt that you may be
>wary of that, since so many all-raw folks are so very diminutive to
>any non-raw consumption, but all I can do is say I'm sincerely
>intrigued.

Aajonus said:
>>Probably like most readers and participants of RAW-FOOD, I have
>>wrestled diet through conceptual battles and found it futile,
>>frustrating and confusing. I prefer using my intuition and rationale
>>WITH my instincts.

Kirt said:
>I have my _highest_ respect for such an approach. Indeed, humans are
>well designed to use all levels of their consciousness to find their
>way. You are a fine example of this.

Aajonus said:
>>I am sensitive and I want to remain so. I have been attacked and
>>slaughtered for ideologies rather than for sustenance.

Kirt said:
>If you are refering to my review, you surely mistook my words as badly
>as you claim I did yours! I wasn't attacking or slaughtering you.
>Perhaps you are refering to others...but I'd take it all back before
>I'd feel any degree of comfort with your feeling that I was attacking
>you! No, I wasn't.

Aajonus said:
>>I had done the same to others. I do not wish to battle theories and
>>ideologies anymore, becoming angry and numb, and so I decline
>>Peter's kindly careful invitation for now. I may visit the web site
>>and read from time to time.

Kirt said:
>I hope you change your mind and join us. It _is_ possible to have
>dialogue about these issues without battling or becoming angry and
>numb. Really, haven't you maybe overreacted a bit? I can only guess
>that with the constant barrage of criticism you must get from the
>cooked world, that perhaps you thought the raw folks would be blindly
>supportive, and my ambivilant review sounded much more scathing to
>your ears than it actually was? I don't know, but I sure didn't think
>that I would alienate you!

Aajonus said:
>>My first perusal, of the volume mentioned above, erupted so many
>>frustrating memories that I actually had chills up my spine and knots
>>in my stomach. I remembered when I adamantly believed that it was
>>wrong, even anti-spiritual, to slaughter animals but that it was good
>>to slaughter vegetables and fruits. I don't know if I can
>>completely forgive myself for all the misguidance and suffering,
>>often through down-right intellectual and emotional intimidation,
>>that I gave people when I deftly criticized them for killing animals
>>(meat-eating) and food (cooking). I possibly caused them more harm
>>than good by completely closing their minds to veganism and
>>raw-foodism out of shear defiance toward my self-righteously superior
>>concepts.

Kirt said:
>This is one of the central issues in the raw world these days. There
>are many raw fooders who are vegan or have been for decades, often at
>detrime to their health. It is understandably hard to share the
>importance of raw animal foods (RAF) with them, without tipping off
>the vegan alarm, so to speak. Indeed, many would welcome your
>experience struggling with the same issues. There is little doubt that
>I am not fully sensitized to the vegan rap, and that I
>_under_appreciate their dilemma. Your voice of consumate experience in
>these matters would be very welcome on raw-food. There simply are very
>few "elders" around who have come up through the raw ranks as you
>have. You have an important point of view to share, and I feel
>downright crummy that I have had part in "turning you off" of
>partcipating on the raw-food mailing list. My intention was the
>opposite: to share your book with others and discuss its many new
>points of view. And, truth told, I hoped you would be interested
>enough to join in and share more. Instead I have offended you. I wish
>it weren't so!!

Aajonus said
>>Since I view everything as alive and conscious, my dietary
>>considerations have simplified my ideologies to:  living
>>disease-free, respecting the well-being of all things
>>(organic-minded; ecology), and feeling as healthy and happy as
>>possible. I was 20 and dying of cancer with diabetes and 4 other
>>incurable diseases. Now I'm two month away from 50, disease-free,
>>happy and, I'm told, have the health and body of twentysomething
>>without having exercised in 18 years. Several of my goals are to make
>>more alternative information readily available

Kirt said:
>The raw-food list is a very important venue for such alternative
>imformation!

Aajonus said:
>>I got healthier in some ways for years as a raw food fruitarian/vegan
>>but deteriorated in others to the point of being near death from
>>disease again. As described in my book, in 1976, I was fasting to
>>death because I was deteriorating in the stressful outdoors as a
>>completely raw fruitarian/ vegan, not simply because I did not want
>>to return to a diseased civilization (misstated in the review).

Kirt said:
>The fruitarian "crack" was not directed at you (who are now anything
>but a fruitarian!), but is part of a larger context on the raw-food
>list about the mindset of many fruitarians...In any event, I probably
>should not have made the crack.

Aajonus said:
>>After taking 1 1/2 years to completely recover from a 41-day fast, I
>>turned against forced fasts. Since then (1981), whenever food is
>>unappealing, I recommend raw juice-feasting and/or chewing celery
>>until appetite returns. Fresh raw juices provide the best vitamin and
>>enzyme supplementation.

Kirt said:
>Many have experienced similar trouble on a vegan diet but lacked the
>whatever-it-is to explore further into RAF territory. Many have also
>found fasting to be problematic as well, and favor juice fasting.

Aajonus said:
>>I wrote my book telling my story and giving as much info as my
>>publisher and editors allowed, and my brief theories. It is there as
>>help for anyone in their journey to better health rather than fixed
>>ideologies. Most of the remedial suggestions are empirical rather
>>than theoretical. Science leads academia. Academia leads education.
>>Education is the main thrust for the media and the people. Since
>>science is invested in manipulating the world, including the human
>>body and spirit, instead of embracing Nature's symbiotic
>>life-province that makes this planet so naturally pleasurable, most,
>>if not all, of us are caught in manipulation of each other. It is a
>>pity.?

Kirt said:
>I don't know whether you are speaking directly of me here, but Jeez,
>Aujonus, I am _not_ trying to manipulate you!! Read back over my
>private posts to you (and my many many posts on the raw-foods lists).
>I am extending myself to you in the most honest way I know how.
>Further understand that the review was written to the mailing list in
>the context of months of everyone's posts on the issues you mention
>above. We often discuss books, and it appeared that your "must read"
>book was not on anyone's shelf yet, so I thought I would post a
>provocative review of a provocative book--hoping to get your
>experiences out to more of the people who are in need of it! I am not
>about to make a sound-bite-like review in order to woo your friendship
>(now _that_ would be manipulative!), but am very much interesting in
>an exchange of ideas/information between us--or if that is not
>possible (because I have inadvertantly offended you with the review),
>at least the greater dissemination of your ideas to the raw world.

Aajonus said:
>>My main intention is to make my experiences and results available to
>>improve people's health and well-being. At the present, I am not a
>>dietary evangelist.

Kirt said:
>This is clear. And I hold you in the highest regards for your
>position!

Aajonus said:
>>I wish you, Peter, and Kirt, and everyone reading this, the very best
>>of health.

Kirt said:
>Now. It's far past two o'clock, and I wish you the best as well! How
>can I share with you the dismay I felt when I saw that you took the
>review as an attack? How about this: it made me want to eat some
>french bread! ;) Anyway, I was distressed. Hopefully, you will see
>things less tragically in time.
>Perhaps it would help you to know that I have, on the raw-food list,
>consistently confronted the fruitarian/vegan crowd as regards their
>evangelism and wishy-washy metaphysics. It would have been dishonest
>of me to embrace the "new-age" elements in your presentation simply
>because you are onto RAF. Anyone familiar with my concerns on the
>matter (as most raw-food listers are) would not have stood for such a
>manipulation from me. As for your lack of evangelical posturing, I
>only wish I had commended you in a very forthright and forceful manner
>in my review. There are so very few rawists who are not evangelical
>that I barely recognise another "comrade-sans-arms" when I read him.
>Though there has been little feedback about my review (and more
>importantly: about your book!) posted on the list, I am under the
>impression that most listers didn't find it to be particularily
>scathing.
>Perhaps, I am wrong about this, but in comparison to my oppositional
>response (usually quite polite, but there were a couple time when I
>_was_ scathing) I gave to a recently published fruitarian book
>(Nature's First Law), the review I posted on your book was about as
>days, instincto or otherwise. Indeed, I am about to the point that I
>would write a similarly ambivilant review of our own ms.!
>Anyway, it's late, but please hear my message in all this: I am not
>trashing your work! I am looking forward to hearing more information
>(including clarifications of any other misrepresentations in the
>review).
>Indeed, I thought I was extending myself in friendship to you.
>I still am.

>Cheers,
>Kirt

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]