Christopher:
>Kirt wrote, about fringe diet gurus: Cutting them slack is embarrassing. Kirt, you >misunderstood me about the "gurus."  I don't mean to "cut them slack" -- I CELEBRATE >them, exalt them, enshrine them on the highest pedestals. Iconoclastic visionaries have >led me to turning points in my life.

It is very understandable you feel this way as you obviously have benefitted greatly from their teachings.  But I fear you are a part of a minority and that most of us  in many ways would have been better off had they chosen different paths.

>And you too, no?  Wasn't your life enriched by your own (former) heroes --  Burger, >Janov, Korzybski?  Hey, after the credulous adulation you lavished on those guys not so >long ago, I don't blame you for feeling sheepish.  But might you be slipping over the >line into backlash?

Kirt has in the time I have known him been refreshingly independent in his thinking showing little loyalty to any dogma or authority.  Granted, he may at times be a little overstated in asserting his independence but this is perfectly in line with his character and not an ideological u-turn as you suggest.

>You fault the gurus for having the courage of their convictions -- claiming to have a >"corner on the truth," you call it.

No, he just is calling them on their inconsistencies.

>So different from "mainstream" scientists, who "admit they don't know" the cause and >cure of most diseases.

There are dogmatic types on either side of the fence for sure.  But I find sweeping statements to be more common on the alternative side and more blatant.  Unfortunately, the alternative underdog often carries a righteous, misplaced chip on his/her shoulder with a mission to save our *wretched* souls.

>Gosh, Kirt, which scientists are you thinking of?  Surely not those guys who swear that >dietary cholesterol causes heart disease?  ... that mercury fillings are harmless?  ... >that fasting is quackery?  Kirt, if you see no closed-mindedness in Establishment >science, you're not paying attention.

This has never been his contention.

>"For dang sure," you proclaim, let's hold the gurus "accountable for their criminal >acts."  Huh?  Are they all convicted felons?  And even if they are, SO WHAT?  Shall we >repudiate a theory because its author misbehaves?  What happened to the old-fashioned >idea of judging a theory on its merits?

Do the merits of a theory not hinge on its applicability and ability to produce consistent results?  I find it a dangerous path to go down to separate a man's work from his ethics and actions.  There obviously can be found exceptions to this but with unethical behavior, inconsistency in method and thought usually follows.

>When Guy-Claude Burger, for example, was busted on a morals charge, did that invalidate >the genius of his work.

Of course not, but it does on the other hand not further his credibility any.  If Burger can be so much off in one area, odds are that he is in others as well.

>-- he who articulated, before anyone had coined the word, the core of what we now call >Paleodiet.  The benchmark of healthy diet, said Burger, must be evolutionary >adaptation. I honor him as a trailblazer and an original thinker.

I agree that he deserves a lot of credit even if he did withhold many of the sources for his inspiration.  I think he did it so he would be perceived to be more original than he really was.  This sign of immaturity is consistent with many of the less fortunate behaviors that he displayed.

>What was Herbert Shelton's crime?  Raso, the born-again AMA flack, belabors the death >of a client who fasted with Shelton -- as if no one ever died under the ministrations >of AMA doctors.  I thank Shelton -- whatever his foibles -- for teaching me this >simple, venerable, self-responsible healing method.

Again, you give credit where credit is due.  Still, we must keep in mind that fasting has in the long run done more harm than good for most of those who have experimented with it.

>And I thank Arnold Ehret for the gift of Breath.  After decades of taking drugs for >congestion, rhinitis and asthma, I learned from his little book me what the >"open-minded" minions of medical orthodoxy never told me:  Diet makes a Difference.  No >doctor had ever asked me what I was eating!

Many before Ehret were aware of the connection between diet and health but without a lot of the misinformation that Ehret contributed.

>Three cheers for the health gurus and the beacons they light for us all!  May we never >follow them blindly, but may their tribe prosper.

Your enthusiasm and loyalty is inspiring but I would never go this far.  Their track record is just too poor.

>>Jon Stubbs wrote, about health gurus:  i rather expect that i shall have to listen to >>many a madman if i am to hear the truth from somewhere besides within. >>

Christopher:
>Well said, Jon.  In fertile curiosity lie the roots of discovery and growth.  >Adventurous spirits bring the JUICE to life, which tight-lipped Reason does not know.

Calling somebody's bluff is hardly an expression of "tight-lipped reason" but rather the ultimate expression of the indomitable human spirit.

>Those who obsess about the RISKS of the charismatic gurus think they are playing it >safe.

Obsess?  Only a fool would deny the obvious dangers.  Skydiving is no less enjoyable even if observing the law of gravity by wearing a parachute. :)

>But they run risks of their own -- constriction of the mind and impoverishment of the >soul.

This is always a danger but your point is hardly applicable to people on this list who are experimenting with so many different diet choices and unconventional lifestyles.  The risk of being blinded and seduced by the many charismatic gurus who are competing over our souls I think is of a much greater concern.  Accepting the vanity, shallowness, dishonesty, corruption and lack of sound principle that so often are part of the package that so many of them deliver is what IMHO leads to a true impoverishment and rigidity of the soul.

Jon:
>Let's take victoras as an example. He wrote/compiled a VERY influential book (Survival >into the 21st Century). Arguably a 'fringe' book. He had many struggles with bolemia, >coffee addiction, etc. He was very candid about it later, describing how he felt the >pressure of living up to perceived ideals for the people he "lectured to".

Yet, he is still promoting a book that contains a lot of outdated information.  With it selling over 300.000 copies and his prosperous career as a Cell Tech distributor, he has little reason not to shelve it and/or put a revised version on the market - especially as he has been so forthright about his own health challenges.

>Some of these "gurus" (NFL guys included) have a powerful intention.

Or so they would like us to believe.

> Then they get busted making human or subhuman mistakes. Yea, Arnold Ehret said some >really fucking stupid shit (it is the lungs and not the heart that pumps the blood). >But I've come to expect that it takes a break with normalcy to find things out.

I am still waiting. ;-)

> And if we didn't have adventurous spirits willing to: drink their own pee, go without >food, hyper-ventilate, swim in icey water, jump from high places, climb mountains, >sprout things, ferment things, etc, without those willing and weird enough, I should >say I lives and history would be more boring.

But if these spirited individuals are not willing to learn from their mistakes, how much is really gained?  Life is so full of wonder and excitement who needs to be entertained by mindless eccentricity?

>In fact, i rather expect that i shall have to listen to many a madman if i am to hear >the truth from somewhere besides within.

Without an open mind and a willingness to admit failure, daring experimentation will not itself lead to "truth".  Neither will living in an ivory tower refusing to take a thorough inventory within.

Tom:
>The question then is, can one inspire others to take positive action (improved diet), >without engaging in the misrepresentation, exaggeration, intellectual dishonesty, that >characterize many past/present raw "gurus"? Can you motivate change without dishonesty? >Can you sell the diet without lying?

That is the question.  For if there is deceit there really is not any *diet* - just a fantasy that only rarely can manifest.

>My view is that it is indeed possible to advocate healthy eating, without lying, >without wild promises. It is also possible to promote healthy eating, while putting >people ahead of dietary dogma (the "gurus" regard dogma as more important than the >health of their followers). Not only is it possible, I think the future of raw may >ultimately depend on it, as lies (e.g., crank science) and stealing (e.g., plagiarism) >are not a firm foundation for the future.

Thanks for expressing so eloquently what I was trying to say.  You and many others on this list are living proof that it is indeed possible.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]