>The following article presents my personal ideas about the concept of toxemia.
>It is by no means complete, so all reactions, comments, additions and
>criticisms are welcome.

Jean-Louis! Your english is remarkable. Did you have a native english
speaker do any editing? or was that all your own?

Your ideas on toxemia were interesting and your moderate approach is a delight.

A couple thoughts...

>A good indication whether the concept is valid or not comes from other diets,
>like Paleolithic diets, which can claim to be at least as natural. It appears
>that no Paleo-dieter ever blames the detoxification of grains or dairy for any
>trouble, whereas raw vegetarians, and especially raw vegans, often complain
>about "detoxification" symptoms (usually weakness, emaciation or
>sensitivity to cold). One may argue that the cleansing process among Paleo-dieters is
>hindered by their consumption of animal food, but again, current research shows
>that meat can't be considered unnatural.

I wonder if paleo-dieters would have the sensory sensitivity to discern the
(admittedly theoretical) detox of grains and/or dairy. I'm interested in
your view on body odors as it relates to detox. I found that my stools were
NOT odorless when eating animal foods, even raw and instinctively selected.
Whereas I did appear to approach a relatively odorless stool when on 90%+
raw vegan diet (which I ate at times due to lack of animal food
availability). Cooked foods do give both my wife and I much more
discernable body odors and I can't help but wonder at a theoretical
explanation.

Indeed, the whole issue of detox was subjectively "proved" to me when I
quit smoking years ago. There was no doubt at all to me that my body was
casting off tar etc which had accumulated during years of smoking, or that
a series of colds I had were expelling crap from my lungs.

And later during my purists days of instincto, I would have odors (not just
stools, but urine, ear wax, eyebrow sweat, etc.) that were dead ringers for
various denatured foods eaten previously (processed cheese, "baco-bits",
souffles, etc)--sometimes very vivid smells of foods I had eaten over a
decade ago. And usually when fruits (esp "new" fruits) or honeies were
extremely attractive.

Such pre-verbal experiences left me with a nearly unshakeable belief that I
was indeed detoxing remnants of denatured foods. Even today, when I would
_like_ to shake that all off as some sort of instincto brainwashing, I know
better on a gut level.

So anyway, you made no mention of the instincto bit about body odors being
a clue to the nature of detox. What do you think?

>That the "toxemia" rhetoric provides an explanation where medicine fails is
>certainly not a proof of its validity. One cannot dismiss hundreds of
>volumes of scientific results without explaining in depth why they are wrong. A new
>theory should always integrate the old one.

It may well be that "instincto toxemia theory" (as written by Bruno Cromby
in "Maximize Immunity" for example) does indeed contain the old "medical
model" of disease as a special case. It ain't general relativity ;), but it
may well be seen as the more comprehensive and more complete beginnings of
what the emerging field of Darwinian medicine may become.

>In addition, a theory has a scientific value only when supported by various experimental data and >quantitative results.

Well, yes and no. It has scientific _validity_ when the experiments are
done which support it, but in the absence of such studies such a novel
theory as the instincto toxemia theory" certainly may have some sort of
value, especially as Bruno recommends many experiments which could well be
undertaken to test the theory.

In general, I feel that Bruno's exposition welcomes scientific verification
(or not) whereas most other raw raps about toxemia and detox and disease
are not "willing" to be researched in any rigorous manner--and thus they
can be the catch-all categories for all trouble experienced and the mantra
of faith which must be repeated over and over to avoid the truth of
deficiencies and/or other problems.

Instincto seems to have its troubles, but not so much deficiencies (as is
so evident in raw vegan regimes) as misplaced idealism and all the rest of
the emotional baggage of radical diets (which is nearly identical to raw
veganism at times).

>Instead, the language of Natural Hygiene always remains vague and ignores the
>advances of modern medicine.

NH is certainly in a timewarp IMO. Among jazz buffs, a pet discussion is
what would Charlie Parker be playing today if he hadn't died. Would his
genius have transended bebop and continued to evolve? or would he, had he
lived, have been stuck in the same modes ;) as his peak bebop years? Some
folks even say that Parker _had_ to die since he had already played
everything possible in his new language of bebop by the 50's. Anyway, what
would Shelton be up to if he hadn't died? Would he be embracing
paleo-research and the instincto discovery of RAF? Or would he remain as
self-satisfied as he appears in most of his writings?

>The theory of instinctive nutrition seems to adopt
>a more scientific language: the toxins have a name and their existence is
>clearly acknowledged (Maillard molecules), some references in the medical
>literature are provided, as well as explanations for auto-immune diseases such
>as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis or multiple sclerosis. While the theory is more
>attractive to a science-oriented mind, it remains largely speculative and
>lacks experimental backup.

Clearly, the theoretical details (and lack of them!) and almost total lack
of research in instincto theory are weak, but I do think as a general
paradigm, instincto is far beyond NH. Again, I look for instincto,
paleo-research, Darwinian medicine, and evolutionary pyschology to become
something greater than the sum of its parts in my lifetime. NH and raw
veganism is fast becoming a dead-end offshoot. It will probably be a "meme"
that survives in some form for a long while because it is so useful to a
particular animal rights sort of person, but it won't become a dominant
"meme" because it is simply so false to facts in its mostly vegan stance.
Whatever it is that instincto, paleo-diets, Darwinian medicine, and
evo-pysch have in common (perhaps simply a respect for our biological
heritage as given)--_that_ "meme", that paradigm is the one I would bet on
to become dominant in time. If for no other reason than our biological
heritage is inexcapable (except, ironically, by flight into purely
intellectual domains).

>That Maillard molecules are toxic at the concentrations at
>which they appears in cooked food hasn't been proven. Some good results among
>instinctive eaters have certainly been obtained, but they may simply be due to
>the suppression of wheat and dairy, as well as heavily processed foods. In
>fact, it is thought that the main causes of multiple sclerosis are proteins from
>dairy, cereal grains, yeast, eggs and legumes, as well as a high level of
>saturated fat intake. See:

Sorting out the usefulness of a raw paleo-diet vs a half raw paleo-diet
will be an important feature of future research for this observer.

>We shall now discuss a few symptoms that are usually interpreted as
>detoxification:

Your discussion was very interesting, esp the bit about fasting ketosis.

Many of the symptoms can be seen as signs of deficiency, but I do suspect
that symptoms which throw off material such as colds, skin eruptions, etc.
will be shown to have _some_ basis in detox--though certainly not 100% so.
Of course, I have no rigorous proof, but I'd hardly call the existing
research on cold viruses rigorous proof that colds are soley caused by
viral agents either ;)

>The list presented above is by no means complete and many diseases are not
>(yet) fully understood by medical researchers. The possibility that toxemia
>plays a role cannot be ruled out completely, of course, but the point of the
>present article is that in many instances, "detox" is a too easy explanation,
>and a denial that anything could possibly be wrong with a diet that is
>perfectly adapted to the human biological design.

I agree. It appears to me that the medical model emphasizes the "causative
agents" (bacteria, viruses, and lately genetics) to an un-useful extreme.
Whereas most raw diet theories (including instincto) emphasize "terrain
issues" to an un-useful extreme (ie, disease can not happen in a pure body
etc). There is no need to choose one theoretical stance over the other, but
perhaps only admit that both models have something to say about the reality
of it.

Cheers,
Kirt