Peter concludes: >>If Schmid is on target regarding his caution on fresh water fish that >>along with the instincto malaria issue shows that there are a couple of >>exceptions to the beneficial microbe theory. >Kirt : >Perhaps your conclusion shows that in nature there will always be >exceptions to any theory one might construct about nature. This may seem >like a cop out, but it is not really. >(...)When the BMT starts to embrace the exceptions as well as the "proof" of >it's case, we will know it has matured in important ways. In other words, >when future Maximize Immunitys includes chapter(s) on counter-examples of >the BMT (such as malaria) it will be all the stronger and robust. Stop. Are you serious when you say that malaria is a counter example of the beneficial Microbe theory because one unfortunate twenty-four year old girl who had previously eaten cooked foods for eighteen years, and whose parents had been eating cooked foods since Methuselah, has died beacuse a doctor didn't recognize in her the fierce symptoms of a ternary or quaternary fever ? Beware of your self praised "anti-dogmatism". It should not blind you to the realities of our "degenerated" state -both physical and mental-. I often warn other crudivores that this thing about "complete detoxination after x,y,z, years" of raw diet/fasting... is just "hygienist" hype, being sold by the new merchants of "elixir of life". The reality unfortunately is much bleaker, not really a selling point for future instincto : it will take generations of raw eaters to restore our "health capital" to its normal attributes. Those who are not convinced should only read again Pottenger's Cats. My old uncle who studied medicine but never dared to become a physician, used to repeat to me every so often : "you sow the seeds of health before 7 , and you eat whatever you've sown after 25 ". This idea that you can only marginally recoup after 25, the errors that your parents allowed to be perpetrated on you when you were a child is an idea I very much value. >Kirt : (...) (I have _never_ talked to someone in >8 eight years who didn't promptly bring up objections to RAF on parasitical >grounds. Never ever.) I've never ever met somebody who immediately raised the parasite argument and who, notwithstanding his former argument, has ever considered to try and check the diet for himself... Personally when I hear that kind of argument, I do my best to change the subject of the discussion. You simply cannot stand in the way of other people's fears, whether rational or irrational. You would be amazed by the number of people who think that all the good things that have befallen on men since the beginning of history is entirely due to the courage and determination of our ancestors (particularly in cartesian France...) . Our irreligious (I'd rather say anti-religious) world has obliterated the notion of Providence in everybody's mind, except amongst the learned and the savants. The very idea of instinct has disappeared from scientific theories at the asme time as the idea of a providential nature. >(...) >Also, no one has yet stated the obvious, a parasite which quickly kills >it's host has some extraordinary problems of natural selection to overcome. Quite wrong. This used to be Burger 's main argument against parasites, as delivered in his two days "Cours d'introduction" >Peter : >>, so I choose to believe that when eating high >>quality raw animal foods, our taste buds will steer us away from any >>potentially dangerous servings. >Kirt : Hmmm...I don't, at least not as much as I'd hope I could. We have both >Vonderplanitz and Burger anecdotes about their taste failing to prevent >them from mushroom poisoning. That taste buds do not protect against many a parasitic infection is certainly true. But Burger would not have dared saying that tastebuds do not protect us against mushroom poisoning. This, in my view, is a biaised reading of the mushroom episode referred to by Mr TU. Our instinct does protect us, but our curiosity is often stronger than our instinct... Kirt : >There is some evidence that wild primates will "self-medicate" with particular vegetation, apparently to purge intestinal parasites. I wonder if our beloved cousins really follow your reasoning when they wander in the quest for the miracle herbs and plants... Kirt : >If the BMT is at all times correct, how would such behavior be explained? There is also the evidence of wild animal populations being quite harmed by viral >"sharing" (most importantly for our purposes, the gorillas/TB and >chimps/polio). This too, is not explained by the BMT and deserves >discussion in those "missing chapters". You are hinting at the very reason why the scientific community will laugh at Comby's book, if they ever get a chance to read it. Reclassifying all detrimental parasites, microbes under the " beneficial" banner is too simplistic, naive, and anthropocentric a view of the microscopic world. I don't think Comby is crazy enough to think that all parasites and viruses can be reverted to the innocuous type in a primitive food environment . However that is very much the impression a savant would get from reading his book. One would have expected from a scientist of such high attainment as Bruno, a more balanced book, leaving some room for eventual refutation... or strenghtening. This in turn would probably have meant additional research for Bruno (of the kind not immediately available to him...), and would therefore have slashed in his otherwise extremely busy TV/Radio agenda. (And Denis: hush up about the >transfer of parasites from wild to domesticated animals! I really don't >want to be rounded up by the health department as a non-symptomatic carrier >of any germ they might someday decide to blame on instinctos...;)) If I understand correctly, a typical coarse expression amongst instincto would be (instead of "you, full of s...") : "you, full of parasites" >If a small % of parasites are problems, even to straight-edge instinctos >and wild animals, I am not surprised. Indeed, I would only be surprised if >a few _weren't_, as that would seem to be contrary to the nature of nature. Well stated, Kirt . Evolution is selection is perfection is evolution... > >I ask (I _would_ beg, but it seems so parasitical to do so) the few who are >wading into the RAF arena to keep some "third-person mental tabs" on their >attitudes about parasites and report to the list how it goes for you over >time. Hopefully, only a small percentage of you will die from your >efforts... ;) With a health and life insurance company of our own, we could devise means to trace all "diseases" and "bugs" threatening or incommoding the life of instinctos throughout the world. A project for year 2099... Cheers, Denis