Cynthia:
> *Examples:
> -p.26 states that herbivores do not display sophisticated moral 
> behavior, ... -p. 27 states that the appendix is a lymph node.  The 
> appendix is a little pouch; a lymph node is a complex filtering 
> structure of tissue filled with lymphocytes.
> 

That's not on pp. 26-27 of my 1999 edition. Do you have the older edition?
If so, then he apparently corrected that out. Ray is a layman, without an
advanced degree in biology or nutrition. So it is not surprising that he has
made some errors, but he still manages to get more right about diet than the
vast majority of biologists or nutritionists. Of all the fields in academia,
I think anthropologists--especially those who study hunter-gatherers or the
Paleolithic era-- tend to be the best educated in what the appropriate diet
for the human species is--but even some of them get it wrong.

One advantage of being a layman is that Ray is also free to speculate. He
can ask the questions and propose hypotheses that scientists dare not
enunciate for fear of being denounced by their colleagues. Sometimes his
speculations appear to be ingenious and ahead of the curve. Other times they
appear merely misguided. Great advances in scientific understanding
sometimes have amateurs as their biggest boosters (and sometimes
originators) in the early stages, before the innovative concepts are adopted
by the broader scientific community.

> It's been pointed out recently (and not for the first time)
> that he apparently contradicts himself on the importance of 
> serum cholesterol--possibly a result of editorial pressure 
> from his publisher.

Ah, thanks for confirming that, Todd. Did Ray ever try to clarify his
position on LDL here or elsewhere? 

Also, do you know if he ever gave what he thought are the appropriate ranges
for protein, fat and carbs, as he doesn't appear to discuss this in his
book, beyond approving of the 30% protein and 70% fat diet of some Inuit and
Stefansson while also recommending the Paleo carb foods (fruits, veggies,
nuts, seeds). From his writings it seems like he would find a wide range
acceptable but push fats more than Cordain--particularly saturated fats of
course.

> His take on "foreign proteins" and the immune system is
> somewhat fanciful.  In immunologic terms, "foreign" means 
> "non-self" and an intact pork protein is as foreign to the 
> human body as a molecule of wheat protein is. 

Actually, there I think Ray is using a term that he likely found in the
medical and scientific journals he read. For example, "foreign proteins" is
used in regards to molecular mimicry in the following articles: 

- "Several different pathological processes have the potential to break
tolerance and cause autoimmune disease. Antigenic similarity between
pathogenic organisms or foreign proteins and self proteins (molecular
mimicry) is one of them." http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/79/5/448

- content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/341/27/2068 

- www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360274 

By "foreign proteins" I think Ray means, not fully recognized as "friendly"
by the immune system in sensitive individuals, due to insufficient time for
humans or a human population group to have fully adapted to the new food.
The human immune system appears to be a bit fuzzy, rather than precise, with
the beneficial result that if new viruses or bacteria arise they are
recognized by the immune systems of at least some people as "foreign" so
that the whole human race isn't wiped out by a pandemic. The downside is,
this fuzzy system sometimes identifies parts of foods as "foreign," which is
generally accepted as resulting in at least one autoimmune disorder (celiac
disease), and likely many others.

> Molecular
> mimicry is something else again.  The two ideas may be 
> conflated a bit in the book (I haven't read it in a while).

I think his discussion of molecular mimicry is one of the most interesting
aspects of the book, though your critiques of his ideas in this area have
been very incisive. While he sometimes states his speculations as though
they were obvious fact and I think he overstates the case (for example,
while molecular mimicry may be part of the process underlying heart disease
or obesity, it is likely not the only underlying process or causative
factor--biology tends to be more complex than that), it is useful to have
someone like him putting these ideas out there, because Eaton, Cordain and
others probably are thinking some similar things but may be hesitant to
state them publicly. I had some of the same thoughts after reading some
articles on Paleolithic nutrition and autoimmune disease before I read
NeanderThin and thought it was pretty cool to see that someone else had made
the same connections, and made more connections that I had not considered.

> Still, in terms of the big picture, it gives plenty of good
> advice, even if it also leaves us with plenty to argue about.

Yes, I am not one to criticize Ray for making some errors or going overboard
at times, since I think he has gotten the big picture far more right than
the vast majority of PhD scientists and he was one of the earliest to do so.
Once the majority of the scientific community gets on board, people may look
back at his book as an early milestone in the progression of nutritional
understanding, along with the writings of Stefansson, Weston A. Price, S.
Boyd Eaton and Cordain. None of them or anyone is right about everything.

Lynnet:
> It is the unexpected intuitions, the "aha" 
> moments, (not  
> all of which are correct), that make this book special.

Well said, Lynnet.