Ben:
>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:

No need to be so formal - we are all quite friendly on this list. :-)

Peter:
>>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.

Ben:
>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.

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.

In your original statement from December 24th you said:

>Interesting that you should mention this!   One of the volumes I have
>found a lot of good information from is one written by Dr. Weston Price.
>Dr.Price was a dentist/doctor/anthropologist who did many extensive
>research studies on primitive, raw diets, including many raw animal
>products.  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 was mainly the last sentence that I was responding to.  Although both
authors, especially Schmid, speak highly of raw animal foods, if my memory
serves me right, none of them have claimed that in all the cultures that
Price visited, were raw animal foods essential to achieving & maintaining
good health.  If am wrong please direct me to the appropriate passages from
their books.

>Furthermore, your statement of processed food is correct; non-processed
>(unheated) foods played a large part in the success of these native diets.

When Schmid and Price speak of non-processed or un-refined foods if not
specifically mentioning otherwise, they are referring to whole organic,
mostly cooked foods as opposed to commercial white flour, white sugar etc.

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

Ben:
>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.

Except for raw organ meats you do not seem to be missing out on much.  My
question, though, was regarding the sources of the foods you eat.

Peter:
>>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.

Ben:
>Peter, there is research if you are willing to search for it.

If you know of any research that confirms the beneficial microbe theory, I
hope you will share it with us.

>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).

Your book section only gives a short description of the books that you
recommend and does not explain what makes leading scientists critical of
the germ theory or who these researchers are.

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

Ben:
>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.

Even if they do bury these eggs for a 100 years before eating them, which I
have my doubts about, it does not make it obvious to me that a) all
bacteria are harmless  b) convince me that bacteria change forms or c)
point out the significance if they do.

>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 couldexterminate entire herds of elephants.

Surely medical doctors are familiar with the old traditions of eating
highly fermented foods.  Do you have a source for this statement about
small amounts of salmonella wiping out 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 still do not see how the fact that people can eat fermented foods with
high bacterial counts is an argument in favor of the existence of
pleomorphism.  Please explain.

Peter:
>>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.

Ben:
>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.

Fair enough, the only problem is finding the "wise diet" - unlike you, I am
still searching. :-(  Also, it should not be ignored that infectious
diseases are quite  common even among the most healthy of native societies.

Peter:
>>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.

Ben:
>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.

Other than Aajonus who are you referring to?

> For example, Aajonus Vonderplanitz received attention recently for
>achieving complete  reversals in over 95% of 250 cancer patients.

These are his claims.  But it should be noted that he 1) does not obtain
medical records from his patients to confirm that they have cancer in the
first place 2) he does not do any follow-up on his patients, so unless they
call him back he has no way of knowing how they are doing  3) he keeps no
files on his 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

His web site is very poor mostly consisting of quotes from his book which I
already have. I find your web site to be much better.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]