At 11:04 AM 4/29/97 +0200, you wrote:

Hi,Jean-Louis:

>I was amazed at how many M.D., O.M.D., blood tests and so on it took
>before the correct diagnosis was finally made.

I was struck by the distinct possibility of multiple infection, including
Endamoeba histolytica, which is (believe me) very difficult to prove in the
lab! (it was often included in our QC tests, and gave us fits, as the cysts
are very difficult to find, as were the amoeba themselves, on stained
slides).A single testing for parasites is insufficient when negative, and
this does get expensive. Also, the finding of one parasite, particularly in
these circumstances, should not rule out the presence of others, especially
when confusing symptoms are present.It's a damn shame to use your life as a
chip on the roulette table.

>1)The very fact that natural *selection* occurs means that a
>sufficient number of deaths have to eliminate the less adapted;

A very good point!

>3)Burger seems to believe that the normal lifespan of humans is 969
>years, but evidence shows that the average lifespan during the
>Paleolithic was 35, that no tribe in the world has a high % of
>centenarians

The book, "Paleolithic Prescription", points out that childbirth
complications, infant mortality, microbial disease (!!) and accident caused
nearly all deaths---therefore it is clear that this average lifespan of 35
is another example of how statistics can be bent to prove the thesis of the
speaker.(Somewhere I read that science cannot really pinpoint the lifespan
of of the owner of the bones from this period, anyway, "over 40" is all they
can attest to). If --if--the mother, infant, and child mortality was, say,
35%--quite possibly much higher--and then accident and disease felled 30%
more by age 35, then the rest lived to 70, why you could then say, pauvre
paleolithics, they lived only 35 years!! But the potential, ah, the
potential has been addressed today, 100 years is being happily achieved
(read the Delaney sisters) and with genetic manipulation, 150 will surely be
the potential in the next century.Those who say, phooey, who wants to live
that old, are dismissing the effect of enlightened eating, abundant
excercise, postive goals and joy of time for the mind to truly explore the
wonders--if we can stop the onslaught against health being waged against us
now by solons and industry.They seem to believe they are immune.

The industrial revolution spared us from cruel drudgery and artificially
shortened lifespan, and re-created time to enjoy life. We are now coming
into a new revolution, which can achieve Shangi-La or sink us into worse
times than the paleolithic--what will they call it, I wonder?

>3) Food is not the whole thing, our life is largely unnatural by many
>other aspects.

Wouldn't it be a shame to be robbed of the joy of reaching our full
potential because of susceptability to the lure of advertising to
overconsume? (perhaps the most fatal of all diseases we have to deal
with).We will never reach our potential unless either leadership or
citizens, one or both, make a concerted effort to practice reductionism, and
cool this feeding frenzy of buying and pursuit of material things. Somehow I
don't see this happening, do you?, before great damage to our potential and
also that of this once lovely planet we inhabit.

But look! The sun has come out! What a joy--life *will* go on, after all...
:)))

Pat