Hello, Peter and all,

Again, Peter, I enjoy our conversation.  I'll continue, given that you
understand that: a) I do not claim to be an expert in any field of health
and b) I discuss with you because I enjoy learning, and not merely arguing.
It would be very silly of me to suppose that I or anyone else had "all the
answers."  With that underway, allow me to adress some of your statements:

>>"Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Price
>>is out of print, "Traditional Foods are your Best Medicine" by Schmid
>>details the work of Price.

>The virtues of different kinds of raw foods are mentioned but in neither
>book have I found any reference to raw animal foods being an integral
>formula to health. I am not a thorough reader but as I remember the
>arguments of both authors, they see a lack of unprocessed foods as being
>the main reason why some cultures seem to have avoided most of the
>degenerative diseases that have so swept the modern world.


Sorry, Peter, but I have to disagree.  I just finihsed a re-read of Schmid's
book over the holidays.  It goes into great detail about the vital part that
raw animal foods played in the nutrition of several cultures.  Furthermore,
your statement of processed food is correct; non-processed (unheated) foods
played a large part in the success of these native diets.

>Sounds great, but in the mean time I am curious to what are the sources of
>raw foods you are sustaining yourself on.

It is not a simple matter: quality of raw animal foods is vital.  Many
commercial raw animal products are not safe for consumption.  Due to
availability, I use the following foods in conjunction with a balanced raw
diet:  raw dairy (milk, butter, cream), beef, fish (right now mostly salmon,
scallops, and swordfish), eggs (non-commercial, free range).  Most of my
other diet is similar to most other raw fooders: sprouts, veggies, juice,
cold-pressed plant oils, fruits, unheated honey, etc.


>until the beneficial microbe theory has gained
>some more recognition, I think that I will pass on this option and make
>efforts to avoid the critters. ;-) This is another theory that I am very
fond of.
>However, (correct me if I am wrong) I am not sure that there is much
>actual research to back it up.

Peter, there is research if you are willing to search for it.  Fortunately,
not all humans are tied to the paradigm of germ theory.  This is not to say
that the "good bacteria" theory is _the_ absolute truth, but germ theory has
major faults, pointed out by leading scientists since the days of Pasteur.
Further readings on this can be found in the book section of our website.
(www.odomnet.com/live-food).

>Even in alternative health circles the existence of pleomorphism is
>questioned.  What convinced you that these different bacterial stages
>actually exist?

Just two examples that come to my mind:  Two dishes enjoyed in different
parts of the world.  As you may know, some asian cultures enjoy "100-year
old eggs," that is, they bury eggs, allowing them to ferment.  The eskimos
consume fish that has also been fermented in the earth for extended periods
of time.  Medical personell maintain that such levels of salmonila could
exterminate entire herds of elephants.  However, in many such examples,
humans come in contact with such bacteria.  At any given time, we have many
such bacteria in our bodies.  Koch, Bechamp, and many others developed
postulates which make it difficult to accept the standard "germ theory"
which most allopathic followers accept.

>I agree with your sentiment but the fact that much of the medical
>establishment's attitude to microbes is based on fear and superstition,
>does not in itself mean that these organisms cannot be harmful to humans
>even in an optimal state of intercellular terrain.

I agree -- a wise diet does not ensure immunity to _every_ disease, but in
most cases, it does mean avoiding chronic and life-consuming illness.

>Unfortunately, the high, raw fat diet you are on does not work
>for everybody especially those with severe conditions.  A friend of a
>friend of mine who had been on it for six months recently died from the
>complications of a cancer tumor and another person, also with cancer, who
>has been doing it strictly for a similar period of time is just barely
>hanging in.

Peter, I would be both a liar and a fool to present myself as an expert in
healing.  I have only been on the raw diet for 6 months, actively reversing
my own illness.  However, there are some real numbers in this battle against
such illness:  the nutritionists with extensive experience in specifically
healing cancer truly do have alarming success rates.  For example, Aajonus
Vonderplanitz received attention recently for achieving complete reversals
in over 95% of 250 cancer patients.  Many of these patients only came to him
after exhausting traditional methods of treatment.  If you are interested in
reading more about his information, please do so.  www.earthlink.net/~welive


best of health,

-Ben