The following from Bruno has been sent to me to forward to the list:

Now back to another subject, I wanted to tell you, Peter, that you're
doing a great job with this list. Getting raw-foodists or any other
group to get along with each other and exchange is a beautiful
experience, and it generally isn't an easy task. You're doing a great
job at it as a moderator and I hope the list will be successful for a
long time. On my part I very much enjoyed reading all the info and
participating in the cyber-raw world so far. It's a good way to spread
the knowledge, bring people together at a distance, and exchange their
experiences. It is especially important and precious in a field like
raw foodism where psychological support and exchange are essential. I
would appreciate keeping in touch with many of you, but I just can't
keep up with too many messages to read and answer with an already full
agenda. Therefore I feel the need to take a break for a while. It's not
that I wouldn't like to stay with you all, I really liked it. But
time-pressure is strong and I have to make choices. Therefore I
probably won't reconnect to the list right now but will surely show up
again some time in the future... In order not to lose the contact with
the list and its members, many of whom I know personnally or would like
to stay in contact with, I will answer all private mails and would
highly appreciate receiving a copy of whatever messages are of special
interest. Peter, this paragraph can be passed over to the list. In case
some members of the list want to stay in contact with me, they can
e-mail to : [log in to unmask]

BE HAPPY.Bruno.

Hope I'm not boring too many people by sending out several messages to
the list on the same day after several weeks of silence. The reason is
that I've been overworking several weeks without an ounce of time to
read/answer my mail and e-mail. Several hundred non-urgent messages
piled up in the "IN BOX" of my computer and now that I'm on a
lecture/expo tour for 10 days, I finally have some time to read through
the messages and react on a few of them. Several contributions will
therefore be mailed simultaneously when I get home in Chambourcy around
the 22nd of may.

Instinctive greetings.

Bruno.

Kirt:
>> BTW, JL, what is your blood type? Bruno pooh-poohed the blood type
>>theory in a post a while back but I am quite interested in any
>>differences in instinctive selection among the different blood types.
>>If there is anything to "Eat According to Your Blood Type" stuff then
>>it should show up in instincto's relative attractions (in the long
>>run) to RAF in general and, perhaps, dairy in particular.
>> Again, for the record, I am type O (the "old" hunter-gatherer blood
>>type) and Melisa is type B (a type supposedly more suited to
>>agriculture). I wonder: is there an (over) abundance of type 0
>>instinctos ? Do the A's and B's find less success on an instincto
>>regime?

Hello Kirt,

Sorry for the Pooh-poohing. Now I have good news to comfort your
theory: my blood-type is type 0. I still have a hard time though
imagining that something as simple as a blood type could determine
one's ability to conduct his life or the easiness to follow a specific
diet, but as I don't have precise arguments either way, please let me
know if you have more evidence.

Cheers, Bruno.


Jean-Louis Tu:
>> Suppose X is beneficial (pleasure +4) and Y is harmful (pleasure
>>-6).

IMHO, note that Y may be harmful with pleasure 0. If pleasure can
reasonably more or less be considered proportional to the usefulness of
the food ingested, on the contrary the intensity of the displeasure is
NOT ALWAYS proportional to its toxicity. Some deadly species of plants,
mushrooms or insects may be lethal without a very negative taste
(pleasure 0, not -6). This is logical because in nature no animal would
eat anything with pleasure 0 (it isn't worth spending energy on it).
Therefore one must always be very cautious when tasting anything new in
nature or on one's table and eat ONLY A LITTLE BIT the first time and
ONLY IF IT TASTES POSITIVE (spit out if no taste).


Peter:
My guess is that you were low in the enzymes needed to digest the milk
but that as soon as your body adjusts to this new food, it should not
be a problem if the milk is raw.

Please note that "adjusting" or "creating an immune tolerance to a
toxic substance" both express themselves by the disappearance of
unpleasant reactions. The disappearance of the immediate intolerance
signs following ingestion can be interpreted both ways. The question is
which of the two is the correct interpretation ?

IMHO, some elements could be in favor of the second hypothesis : 1/ if
intake of milk products even raw, in humans as well as cats, is
regular, often creates an instinctive blocage on a variety of highly
original foods : sea products and/or insects and/or durian and/or
advanced foods especially RAF, for example. Other observatons (detox
reactions of ex-heavy milk intakers) suggest on the otherhand that
these foods are strong detoxifiers of the same milk products.

2/ immediate reactivation of inflammatory reaction after ingestion of
milk products, even raw.

3/ milk product from another species isn't available in nature (please
let me know if you succeed in milking even just a few drops of milk
from a wild goat or buffalo, live or dead). For those who recently
joined the list, you can report to one of my previous mails reporting
about my unsuccessful attempts to take dear's milk from a mother-dear
who was milk-feeding her calf shortly before she was shot.
4/ newborn babies (with less immune tolerances than adults) are  in
most cases intolerant to whole raw milk, whether from goats or cows.
The question of another species' milk being original or not seems quite
clear to me, but of course I understand that opinions on the subject
can vary and reporting the results of all experiments is always
interesting.

Another interesting question would be to determine wether HUMAN MILK is
original for adults to be sucked on breast occasionnally. On several
occasions between age 30 and 36, I tasted some milking-women's
instinctive milk and found it wasn't tasty (the action was rather fun
but not the taste, something like water with a little sugar but not
really attractive to me). However a friend in Paris who's wife is 90%
on instinctive foods (and 10% cooked) recently reported to me that he
tasted her milk (direct from the breast) and found it was delicious.
However she is not 100% instinctive and this can suffice to change th
taste of the milk. Has anybody else made the same experiment and could
share the results ? Both the taste, the amount until the stop, and the
pleasure or not of sucking for adults are interesting elements. Human
females also report so far that adults don't know how to suck the
"real" way and that only babies do it correctly. I am very curious to
know more about these questions if anybody has something to share.

If your instinctive wife or girlfriend is milkfeeding, the reports of
your experiments are welcome, or if you are a women, on an instinctive
diet, and  breast-feeding your baby, voluntary for scientific
experiments, please experiment and report (please send a copy of your
message to [log in to unmask])!

Bruno.

Roy P D'Souza:
>> I'm unclear on what the instincto pronouncement is on this:
>> (1) Parasites didn't exist in paleolithic times.

There's no reason to think they didn't as they are much more primitive
forms of life than humans. They probably appeared much earlier than
more complex forms of life such as humans in the history of the
development of life on Earth.

>> (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.

instinct only distinguishes what you should eat from what you
shouldn't. Other types of categories (protein/glucid/lipid,
predator/non-predator, RAF, non-RAF, ...) are not relevant to the
instinctive approach in which the question would rather be : 1/ if the
food is original or not 2/ if it is, if the instinctive signal once in
contact with the food is positive or not.

>> (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.

YES our immune systems are weakened and we haven't been in contact
since childhood with the useful parasites, bacterias... that we
should've, and therefore we react differently than we would've if we
had grown up in a more instinctive context (toxins have accumulated in
our bodies and lead to much more intense reactions after contamination
than if we had grown up in contact with the microbes and parasites).

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

IMO, true. Parasites, bacterias, viruses and various foods, all
interact n highly complex ways. As we live in almost sterile
environments, with inadequate foods, antibiotics, occasional colon
cleansing, etc... the natural balance of our "internal fauna" is not
what it should be. From a purely pragmatic approach, cases of a wide
variety of severe infections of various kinds practising instincto tend
to show that bacteria and viruses are better controlled by the immune
system in a raw and instinctive context than bigger parasites such as
malaria, trichinosis and toxoplasmosis.

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

Could be, but I don't feel so in the light of the above.

>> I remember reading somewhere that trichonosis-infested pork actually
>> tastes and smells better than the normal kind.

Just a hypothesis, but that's quite logic if parasites are useful in an
instinctive environment (I don't mean to say that trichinosis or other
parasites are useful today in an unperfectly-instinctive environment
because of our past food history, high toxemia, non-instinctive
childhood... parasites can in some cases be detrimental even in some
cases to instinctos today - and in such cases adequate medical
treatment should immediately be undertaken).

Zephyr's answer to whether or not he recalls how delicious the mongoose
liver tasted would be a useful theoritical contribution on this
subject.

Sincerely yours. With best raw regards.

Bruno.

Bernarr Zovluck:
>> Eat once daily, immediately before going to sleep.
>> Born 5/11/29. 5'10", 210, muscular. Ex-wrestler and ex-boxer.
>> Weightlift, run, meditate proprioceptively {the best meditational
>>method, my own technique}, and nude sunbathe, daily.
>> When having sex, practice injaculation, i.e. orgasms without
>>enervating ejaculations!  No masturbation.
>> Am considered the "best laying on of hands" healer in the world.
>> Can help any one be better instantly...feel better, function better
>>and look better, immediately!

Dear guru,

Humbly, I must confess that :
- I don't wrestle.
- I usually sunbathe with a swimsuit (though I do appreciate nude
bathing whenever possible).
- I am a sinner (occasionnal masturbation and/or ejaculation).
- I'm not a vegan (I even enjoy fermented meat and eating insects).
As you can see my situation is quite desperate and I feel very
impressed by your performances. It seems that I am not half as close to
divinities as you. What can you do for me ? Please help a far away
frenchy badly needing some raw expert advice...

>> Nobody and nothing can heal us but ourselves.
>> The purpose of life is the pursuit of happiness. We accomplish such,
>>by self-discovery and self-improvement, every moment of our lives.

That sounds great.

>> "God Healing, Inc."...

Great sense of humour ! I hope the rest wasn't too serious neither.
BTW, congratulations for your direct line to God. Now I understand the
reason he doesn't always answer when I call him...

Just joking.

Sincerely yours. With best regards.

Bruno.

Hello Bob,
It's really nice to hear from you again thru the net.

Robert Wynman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I used to think that I was saving food from "waste" by eating it,
>>even beyond the stop.  Now I believe that the food becomes NON-FOOD
>>(& therefore TOXIC to the body) at the moment of the stop and at THAT
>>point it's waste regardless of whether one choses to eat it or
>>compost it, the only difference being the choice to poison oneself
>with it by eating it when the body can't digest it AND wasting it
>>anyway. I'll bet I didn't make that very clear!

Not at all, it's well said and sounds very clear at least to me, Bob.
Wishing you all the best from France,

Raw salutations.

Bruno.

Jean-Louis Tu wrote:
>> I don't think natural "toxemia" is generated by radiations alone.

You're right. There can be of course other sources of toxemia as
you very well suggest : stress, metabolic disorders due to over-eating
or mixing of foods or other reasons...

>> Moreover, maybe the
>> slaughtering/hunting of animals produce toxins that we wouldn't be
>>adapted to.

However I wouldn't agree on that one : on the base of evolutionary
arguments, we have as much reasons to be adapted to the meat itself as
to the stress hormones secreted at the moment of death. In nature, a
predator eating its prey is nothing softer for the prey than a modern
slaughter-house. In fact it's probably worse since you're eaten and
"déchiqueté" half alive in some cases. If there certainly are stress
toxins, we would probably be adapted to them as these stress toxins
would also have been found in the natural meet-eating circumstances
since the very beginning of meat-eating history.

>>  *Since some Maillard reactions occur during cold storage too,
>> certainly a few are produced naturally too.

Yes, absolutely. At least some Maillard molecules can be obtained at
room temperature (at a slower rate then), as described in the
literature, when protein are in presence of glucids. Any food contains
some protein and some glucids. But there are innumerable numbers of
different Maillard molecules possible and those formed at room
temperature are probably not all the same than those which appear at
higher temperatures.

Best wishes,

Bruno.