Welcome back Stefan!
Stefan:
>I try to sum it up:
>Cancer: 1 case known (Burger's wife)
>Infections: 3 or 4 cases known (Malaria)
>Pedaphilia: 1 uncertain case (still neither accused nor judged) known
Burger's wife was among the longest term instinctos on the planet. And
there are stories of tumors from "eating too much meat"--whether those
were
cancerous I don't know.
Infections: add trichinosis and staph to two of the longest term
instinctos
in the USA. Both required allopathic medical treatment.
Pedaphilia: it's certain enough to my mind.
>So what's this? Do ya call this statistics? Isolated cases?
I didn't call it statistics. Did I?
Isolated cases? Seems like way too many cases to be isolated to me,
especially given the so-very-few instinctos there are. What gets me is
how
often these counter-examples are simply ignored and the instincto
dogma
marches on. So, I guess I take the opportunity to bring these
counter-examples of instincto health up when the rose-colored glasses
come
on.
>You must have got something wrong here. Statistics begin, where at
>least some dozen cases can be presented.
There are easily a dozen examples of instincto ill-health. And how
many
unreported? It may be that the cases we have talked of here are only
the
tip of the iceburg. How many examples of instincto perfect health are
there? How many pure longterm instinctos are there? I don't know. But,
to
me, the burden of proof is on the instinctos since they are making the
claims, and just as often completely ignoring or rationalizing the
non-examples.
>And the most important thing: you forgot to mention the dozens and
>dozens of cases of instinctos which cured themselves from severe diseases
>and began to live a new life.
And there are likely as many cases where the effects were temporary.
Who
knows? It's all self-reported second third and fourth-hand
storytelling.
(With a couple documented short-term remissions for any skeptics.)
In any case, you are not providing statistics either. ;) I am not
trying to
give an overview; I am trying to provide a reality check for folks who
read
the overboard claims of instinctos. It just ain't all true.
>Your kind of statistics is weird to me. It's the statistics of people
>who always emphasize the negative aspects.
Instincto is great. What bothers me is how it is oversold--so I will
bring
up counter-examples when it appears they are being glossed over or
ignored,
as has just happened a couple of times lately.
>In an earlier post you wrote:
>>In any case, there is some evidence that cooking fires have been around a
>>long time, long enough for some adaptation to take place.
>
>Yes, "some adaptation". Not complete adaptation. Man, I guess you are
>eating too much cooked meat now. Maybe your adaptation to this is 5%,
>i.e. 5% of your food should be cooked meat. You are overdoing it! :-)
Smiley appreciated, but what that I have written makes you think my
diet is
affecting me in a negative way? Indeed, as I remember it I was more
negative when I was all-raw, as you repeatedly enjoyed pointing out.
;)
>Ok, I'm testing my adaptation for spending hours in the sun without
>chemical protection now. It's perfect weather here - no cloud on the
>sky and I'll go to the so called airport lake. It is deep, clean and
>there's just one disadvantage: it's situated near the airport so you
>get to know whenever something is landing or starting. But I like it.
It was nice to here you're doing so well, Stefan!
Cheers,
Kirt
Secola /\ Nieft
[log in to unmask]
|
