I invited Aajonus Vonderplanitz to join our list and share with us his
long experience with raw foods. Here is his response:

>Dear Peter, Kirt and everyone, hi!
>Thank you for your invitation to join RAW-FOOD net group. I browsed
>the archived exchanges for February 1-9. In that volume I discovered
>Kirt's review of my book. I will address the review, Kirt, my work and
>myself within this response to your invitation.
>Kirt, you naughty individual, your review revealed to me that you did
>not read WE WANT TO LIVE thoroughly and you lacked some important
>comprehension. You misstated, extrapolated and sometimes misquoted my
>book and work at least six times in approximately two pages. You even
>misspelled my name repeatedly. Worse, you gave advice about it (raw
>butter/UNHEATED honey mixture) based on your personal experience,
>concepts and negative view of my theoretical explanations. Kirt, you
>hadnt studied and digested the material, investigated the results from
>people who had successfully achieved health, and reversed terminal
>diseases, or even experimented for yourself. I was quite shocked. I
>wrote the book so that the non-academically minded could understand.
>However, perspectives that are not framed within our common scientific
>structure, with explanations that seem so foreign as to be mythical,
>may non-the-less be accurate. Many theories that initially seemed
>far-fetched were true. Whether my explanations and my colleagues are
>more or less accurate than established reasoning remains to be
>experienced. Unless the day arrives when we communicate with cells,
>vitamins, enzymes, et al, we will never know their intents and actual
>functions. Until then we surmise. Since science assumes that cells,
>vitamins, and all, are unconscious, choiceless objects we are not
>likely to ever achieve such communication. If we learn the dolphin
>language, or dolphins develop human voice patterns, dolphins may be
>the closest we will get. What remains true is that every diet has
>positive results for somebody in some way or they wouldnt be pursued
>for long, with or w/o side effects. Did your review elevate tragedy to
>comic relief? Or did it ridicule a tragic-life-turned-good? If it is
>fact that instincto is superior and can be framed in scientific terms
>that meet your cerebral criteria, why does instincto have such a high
>attrition rate of, I was told by Ron Strauss, 98%?. My predominantly
>>raw-food(80-100%)/instinctive/intuitive/rational omnivorous approach
>>loses only 23% of those who actually try it for at least 30 days. I
>am 99.999% raw. I average eating one cooked starch a month, when I
>feel I need it for reasons stated in my book.
>To inform readers who have not read my book but have read Kirts review
>of it (4 February), the extrapolated paragraph that began The thought
>of delicious, heavily buttered garlic bread... exists to reveal my
>early stages of climb into raw-foodism, instinctive considerations and
>confusion about how much raw-food was correct (1969). I was
>pioneering on my own. I had no references to guide me into raw foods
>as you have been fortunate enough to have had. I did not commit to
>completely raw until 1972. I added a little cooked grain and potato
>starches in 1986. If read thoughtfully, my book has usually been
>easily understood. There is so much information in it that anyone who
>races through it is likely to misconstrue, misinterpret and lose
>significant info (as in the review). Probably like most readers and
>participants of RAW-FOOD, I have wrestled diet through conceptual
>battles and found it futile, frustrating and confusing. I prefer using
>my intuition and rationale WITH my instincts.
>I am sensitive and I want to remain so. I have been attacked and
>slaughtered for ideologies rather than for sustenance. I had done the
>same to others. I do not wish to battle theories and ideologies
>anymore, becoming angry and numb, and so I decline Peters kindly
>careful invitation for now. I may visit the web site and read from
>time to time. My first perusal, of the volume mentioned above, erupted
>so many frustrating memories that I actually had chills up my spine
>and knots in my stomach. I remembered when I adamantly believed that
>it was wrong, even anti-spiritual, to slaughter animals but that it
>was good to slaughter vegetables and fruits. I dont know if I can
>completely forgive myself for all the misguidance and suffering, often
>through down-right intellectual and emotional intimidation, that I
>gave people when I deftly criticized them for killing animals
>(meat-eating) and food (cooking). I possibly caused them more harm
>than good by completely closing their minds to veganism and
>raw-foodism out of shear defiance toward my self-righteously superior
>concepts.
>Since I view everything as alive and conscious, my dietary
>considerations have simplified my ideologies to:  living disease-free,
>respecting the well-being of all things (organic-minded; ecology), and
>feeling as healthy and happy as possible. I was 20 and dying of cancer
>with diabetes and 4 other incurable diseases. Now Im two month away
>from 50, disease-free, happy and, Im told, have the health and body of
>twentysomething without having exercised in 18 years. Several of my
>goals are to make more alternative information readily available,
>develop raw-food clinics and purchase land for and protect endangered
>indigenous people and their life-styles.
>I got healthier in some ways for years as a raw food fruitarian/vegan
>but deteriorated in others to the point of being near death from
>disease again. As described in my book, in 1976, I was fasting to
>death because I was deteriorating in the stressful outdoors as a
>completely raw fruitarian/ vegan, not simply because I did not want to
>return to a diseased civilization (misstated in the review). After
>taking 1 1/2 years to completely recover from a 41-day fast, I turned
>against forced fasts. Since then (1981), whenever food is unappealing,
>I recommend raw juice-feasting and/or chewing celery until appetite
>returns. Fresh raw juices provide the best vitamin and enzyme
>supplementation. I wrote my book telling my story and giving as much
>info as my publisher and editors allowed, and my brief theories. It is
>there as help for anyone in their journey to better health rather than
>fixed ideologies. Most of the remedial suggestions are empirical
>rather than theoretical. Science leads academia. Academia leads
>education. Education is the main thrust for the media and the people.
>Since science is invested in manipulating the world, including the
>human body and spirit, instead of embracing Natures symbiotic
>life-province that makes this planet so naturally pleasurable, most,
>if not all, of us are caught in manipulation of each other. It is a
>pity. My main intention is to make my experiences and results
>available to improve peoples health and well-being. At the present, I
>am not a dietary evangelist. That frustrates my publisher because he
>is an evangelist for my work and consequently the book. He developed
>this passion after his brother cured himself of chronic insomnia
>(since childhood) in 4 days of following the raw-food suggestions in
>my book. I wish all healings occurred that quickly! Most cases of
>insomnia resolved in several weeks with my suggestions, and a few
>cases, even though they experienced immediate improvement, had taken
>up to a year to heal to regularity.
>I wish you, Peter, and Kirt, and everyone reading this, the very best
>of health.
>Aajonus.
>(http://home.earthlink.net/~welive/)