Roy:

> I'm unclear on what the official instincto pronouncement is on this:

Let me just mention my officious opinions about the subject.

> (1) Parasites didn't exist in paleolithic times.

No one can tell. The official stand of medical authorities is that a
parasite, contrary to symbiosis (like lichens=alga+fungus), is not
beneficial to its host. As generations pass and natural selection
occurs, the cycle of the parasite becomes more and more simple, and
the parasite, when adapted to its new environment, is no longer able
to survive outside its host(s), so it sorts of becomes a prisoner of
the path its species had chosen (prisoners of another animal's
intestine... Yuck!). At the same time, the parasite becomes less and
less dangerous. For instance, in Paris, 30% have Trichuris trichiura.
The fact that we are adapted to that parasite probably means it is an
ancient one, so it probably already existed in the Paleolithic (and
maybe it was dangerous during a "short" period, until natural
selection occurred). More recent parasites may be more dangerous
(according to the medical authorities).

> (2) Paleolithic humans were instinctively able to discern a
>     carcass of a predator from a non-predator, and their instinct
>     was primed to ignore the former.

There are no valuable arguments against eating predators. Some fishes
are predators, but I have never heard of instinctos having problems
with bothriocephalus (sp?)

> (3) We are too feeble from generations of cooked food (or our genes
>     are too weak from science interfering with natural selection)
>     that our bodies don't react the same way as paleolithic humans.

The official instincto position is:
 -we are genetically very close to paleolithic humans
 -if an "original" food tastes good for us, it is beneficial
 -the consequence of cooking is that we are blocked to many foods
 -instinct works well with "original" food that has not been denatured
my too many articifial selections.

>
> (4) A lack of true original foods impairs us from coping with
>     parasites.
>

This is general: eating cooked food intoxifies the body, and the
immune system, having to cope with abnormal molecules, cannot at the
same time cope with parasites,...

> (5) This is a flaw in Instincto theory.
>

Of course, Burger will never say there is a flaw in his theory... He
however admits that the Plasmodium Falciparum (the parasite which
causes malaria) is deadly, even for long-time instinctos, but he says
it is because we weren't exposed to that parasite during childhood,
that's why we lack the antibodies...

Concerning trichinosis and others problems with eating other mammals,
the official argument is that mammals' consumption is too recent in
the evolution, so we may not be well adapted to it. I don't understand
why they refuse to apply that argument to viruses and parasites. For
instance, why not say that AIDS, or any recent virus strain, or a
parasite, is dangerous because humans have *not yet* adapted to it?

Best wishes,

Jean-Louis