Peter:
>>I am curious to which cultures he specifically is speaking of.  If it is
>>easier for you, just give me the page numbers and I will look it up myself.

Ben:
>Summaries of cultures in Schmid's "Native Nutrition":
>Swiss of the Loetschental Valley - p. 9
>Gaels - p. 11
>Eskimos - p. 12
>North American Indians - p. 14
>Polynesians - p. 17
>Africans - p. 19
>Aborigines of Australia - p. 23
>Peruvians - p. 26

I checked all of the above references and was happily surprised realizing
in re-reading them how all the cultures you mention included some amounts
of raw animal foods in their diets, and maybe if we go back far enough in
time to centuries before the time of Price, we will find some of these
peoples such as the eskimos and the North American Indians eating a mainly
raw diet. However, my initial impression that their health was attributed
(by Price and Schmid) to their consumption of whole, mainly cooked foods
and not necessarily raw foods and that raw animal foods were not seen as
crucial to their health - the Indian tribes eating raw, fresh adrenal
glands for vitamin C would be an exception - has not changed.  I am,
however, very open to the idea that small amounts of raw animal foods
especially raw organs might have been one of the main keys to the health
and longevity of these societies.

>Chapter 2 of Schmid's book speaks of specific raw food benefits; the book as
>a whole provides continued examples of how raw and/or lightly cooked foods
>were applied in the differing cultures.

Even though Schmid himself has been on a mostly raw diet himself for over
20 years, he does not advocate a raw diet and only rarely puts his patients
on it.  Still, his enthusiasm for raw foods is obvious even though his book
is based mainly on Price's work who more than anything speaks, as I have
mentioned, of the health promoting properties of whole organic, not
necessarily raw foods.  As you have pointed out Price also speaks of the
virtues of raw foods but it is not the main focus of his work especially as
none of the native societies he encountered on his travels were on
predominately raw diets. So, even though I am glad you made me take an even
closer look at Schmid, I still have my doubts about the validity of your
original statement:

  "Through his research and clear studies of a number of primitive
cultures, he
   found that there were plenty of cultures who lived without chronic illness,
   enjoying almost perfect health and vitality.  He demonstrated that in all
   instances, raw animal foods were integral to this formula of health."

It is by no means a mute point you are trying to make, but I suspect that
you are reading between the lines more than actually quoting either Schmid
or Price on this issue.  Should I against all odds be wrong ;-), I would be
glad if you would be kind enough to point out my error with a direct quote
from either one of the two books. :-)

> Most of my raw animal products are non-commercial, but some of the
animals are fed >grain.  In an optimal situation, I would try to obtain my
foods from natural sources >and animals that are non-commercial,
free-grazing.

Living in Texas my guess is that your main source is Manning's Beef
available from Whole Foods Market?

>In the meantime, I deem it wise to choose non-organic raw over non-organic
cooked.

That is a different issue.  If I had to choose between raw meat from a
commercial grain-fed animal and organic, cooked meat from a range-fed
animal, I would choose the latter as I would rather eat a cooked version of
a food that can truly nourish me than a raw version that is lacking in
important nutrients and full of dubious chemical compounds. Another choice
that might cause difficulty would be between raw, organic, sprouted wheat
that I might have an allergy to and a cooked, commercial vegetable that I
for sure will have no adverse reaction to.  Or having to chose between a
cooked, organic product and a raw commercial?  Life was much easier before
I became a raw, health nut. :-)

>I would be a fool to pretend some kind of expertise in the field of
>microbiology.  However, through personal experience, I tend to think more
>like the scientists such as Koch, Bechamp, and others who agree that the
>"germ theory" is not an absolute.

Me too. I expect analysis of the biological terrain will become an
important diagnostic tool for gauging and monitoring health in the future.

>I would be glad to share any information that I find from time to time
that provides a >different way of looking at this idea.

Please do. :-)

>(I think the 100-year old eggs are simply given that name, I don't think
>they are stored more than a year)

Even this I question but would love to hear some more about this old custom.

>I agree that my points do nothing to "disprove" the germ theory or
>absolutely prove pleomorphism.  All I really am trying to present is that
>things are most likely not as black-and-white as allopathic medicine would
>have us believe.

In order not to resemble stone-throwing hypocrites living in glass
fortresses, we need to be careful not to fall into this trap ourselves.
Recent slogans like "Cooked meat is poison" (Aajonus) and "Cooked food is
poison" (NFL) show that black-and-white thinking sadly is alive & well in
the world of raw.

>If the "germ theory" is absolutely true, then how is it
>that two people exposed to the same virus do not both get ill?  Or, why do
>consistently high percentages of cases of Hepatitis, Measles, Polio, and
>many other diseases come from vaccinated persons?

The fact that we do not all have the same levels of immunity has not eluded
even the mainstream medical community.  This is seen most clearly when
following the direction AIDS research has taken in the last few years with
the recognition of "co-factors" and with the recent recommendations from
the American Cancer Society to eat a lot of fresh fruits and vegetable to
prevent cancer.

>Maybe the absolute truth is somewhere inbetween the "bacteria are our
>friends" theory and the germ theory.

I will buy that. :-)

>Also, which sources speak of high disease rates among native societies?

I just thumbed through a couple of books but could not find anything on the
spot, however, virtually any source on the subject will confirm that
infectious diseases along with physical trauma were/are the main health
challenges of these societies.  Searching the Paleofood archives I came up
with the following that makes the intriguing point that infectious diseases
were uncommon before the advent of agriculture.  It is a post by Karl
Alexis McKinnon <[log in to unmask]> - the full text can be found at
<http://maelstrom.stJohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind9710&L=paleofood&P=R6363>

  "Robson, Boyden and others have dispelled the confusion of longevity with
life
   expectancy and discovered that current hunter-gatherers, barring injury
   and severe infection, often outlive their civilized contemporaries.
   During the industrial age fairly recently did like span lengthen for the
   species, and it is now widely recognized that in Paleolithic times humans
   were long-lived, once certain risks were passed.  DeVries is correct in
   his judgement that duration of life dropped sharply upon contact with
   civilization. Tuberculosis and diarrheal disease had to await the rise of
   farming, measles and bubonic plague the appearance of large cities," wrote
   Jared Diamond.  Malaria, probably the single greatest killer of humanity,
   and nearly all other infectious diseases are the heritage of agriculture.
   Nutritional and degenerative diseases in general appear with the reign of
   domestication and culture.  Cancer, coronary thrombosis, anemia, dental
   carries, and mental disorders are but a few of the hallmarks of
   agriculture; previously women have birth with little difficulty and little
   or no pain."

>You obviously know more about his record-keeping than I do.  I was merely
>referred to him through a couple of his patients, who were very helpful in
>teaching me more about raw foods.  I spent most of my time researching his
>sources, and not his claims.  So I really don't know too much more about the
>statistics of his disease-curing.

Fair enough. However, your initial comments were not expressed with such
temperance. ;-)

>True, but truth be known, his publishers deal with that site, and most
>likely are not willing to publish all of his material publicly.

That still does not explain the site being so poorly put together and
having such a low level of actual content - especially considering that the
publisher is on the diet himself. He decided to publish the book when he
saw the beneficial effects the diet was having on himself and his family.

> However, I have heard that he is planning on publishing a more extensive
detail of the
>methodology of his treatments.

I have heard the same but I doubt that a detailed treatment methodology
really exists.  Aajonus gives a powerful personal testimonial and has given
raw animal foods a huge boost but a scientific/analytical bent he does not
have.

>I will certainly be looking for that.

Unless you have the patience of an Asian egg or the stamina of several
herds of elephants, I would not hold my breath if I were you. ;-) :-)

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]