“What milk to feed a newborn baby?” by Professor J. Lestradet, in Journal of Nutrition and Diet (Cahiers de nutrition et de diététique), March 1982. “Any kind of milk other than mother’s milk, used in an unaltered state, will cause major disruptions. Differences between types of milk are fundamental.” As a matter of fact, there is twice as much lactose in human milk as in cow’s milk, and it is known that lactose is vital for brain growth, which is twice as quick in a baby as in a calf. The writer notes that Romulus and Remus couldn’t possibly have been suckled by a she-wolf since there is nine times as much protein in its milk as in human milk. Such a high intake of protein would quickly have proved lethal, since the liver and kidneys, which excrete uric acid, would have been grossly overworked. Such an overload is already at work with cow’s milk in which there is three times as much protein as in human milk. It is to be noted that the liver and kidneys of a bottle-fed child are 30% larger than the very same organs in a breast-fed child. Cow’s milk doesn’t address calcium absorption better than human milk, although it contains three times as much calcium. Cow’s milk contains five times as much phosphate as human milk, and this causes two-thirds of the calcium to be retained in the gut_the result being that a bottle-fed child tends to have low blood calcium. Further, cow’s milk, whether formulated or not, contains iron and this enhances the growth of pathogenic bacteria (which accounts for excretory smells in the feeding bottle). Using partly skimmed spray-dried milk, one is going the other way and setting up an iron deficiency in the newborn, which is, additionally, worsened since cow’s milk protein irritates the digestive tract and causes microscopic bleeding. As for salt, which cow’s milk is three times as high in, it is known to cause water retention and high blood pressure. There are grounds for thinking that starting a child out on too much salt could well account for some cases of adult high blood pressure. Note 1: No need to make a mountain out of a molehill. A human genome is clearly unsuited for animal milk. Note 2: Understandably, the journal that released the foregoing article banned its publication in a lay book like this one. Everybody needs subsidies from the milk industry. One is foremost bound by medical secrecy and, in the wake of that, scientific secrecy....

_I quite agree with you that mother’s milk is best. But what to do if a mother doesn’t have enough milk?

o With instinctotherapy, mothers always have milk. Even old mothers! My wife breastfed for over 11 years all told, and you can see with your own eyes that she still has lovely breasts. By the way, do you know the definition for “initial” breasts?

o No: Breasts can be considered in their “initial” state if they’re not carried by any “intelligent” contrivance.

_That’s sound logical. But honestly speaking, can women who eat your raw instinctive diet throw their bras away?

o Wasn’t it Francis Blanche who said: “Madame, don’t wait for your breasts to droop, let them down.” I think it wiser to say: “Eat raw food!” That will most assuredly firm up your muscles.

_One often sees, with African women, drooping breasts get so distended that they could be flung over the women’s shoulders. I thought that was due to overextended breastfeeding.

o I’ve seen white women whose breasts had stretched down as far as their belly button, spring back to normal size in a few months. In other cases, I observed breasts swollen with fat, shrink to normal size, without stretch marks. A raw, instinctive diet ensures that a woman eats the right amount of protein and stimulates the clearance of encroaching fat. Muscles regenerate and restore normal body shape as expeditiously as possible. Breastfeeding even enhances this process.
When I was but a young lad, I always thought it strange that nature had rigged a female body with obvious advantages... that were, in fact, drawbacks. When a woman runs away from danger, with such a bulky mass swinging back and forth, it seems so contradictory to the laws of natural selection!
In fact, it’s merely a matter of food disorder. Mammary glands absorb all kinds of substances that are taken up from the bloodstream in order to incorporate them into the milk. If the blood is laden with abnormal substances, the ducts get blocked up, the milk flow drops off and the breasts fill up with fat deposits more or less spectacular depending on the case. While I think of it, I must tell you about something I observed that was rather unexpected. My wife suddenly decided to stop breastfeeding our fourth baby, when it was eight months old, to see how her breasts would react to the weaning. Everything went well; there was no painful swelling or mastitis. Three weeks later, however, the baby seemed to be experiencing emotional problems. My wife resumed breastfeeding, although the milk flow seemed to have completely dropped off. However, after only a few minutes of suckling, my wife had the impression that the milk was flowing freely again. Just to see, she squeezed the remaining nipple, and we saw, much to our surprise, a triple spray of fluid spurt 1-1/2 feet in front of of her.

_It has been reported that Hounza grandmothers breastfeed their grandchildren.

o It’s as normal for a mother to have milk as it is to have saliva. Milk is equally necessary for the survival of the species.

o Yes, three cooked ones and three raw ones! The first three we had before we started out on instinctotherapy. My wife was pregnant with our oldest daughter when they found I had cancer. I found it most unfair to have to give up my daughter by reason of oncoming death. No doubt that impelled me to do my best to pull through.

_It must have taken a shock for you to turn everything upside down to the extent you did.

o Childbirth also set me thinking. It took 16 hours of torture to get the first child out, eighteen hours for the second, not to mention fearing the child would choke to death on the way out and my poor wife flake out. Talk about nature! At the time, I hardly imagined it could all boil down to food.

_What with 11 years of breastfeeding, your wife could have worn herself out and incurred severe decalcification.

o Don’t you remember the chicken producing its egg? I have yet to see deficiencies set in on instinctotherapy. Conversely, I have seen very many deficiencies made good in next to no time. That does, of course, require having wide enough an assortment of foods for instincts to operate and for foods to be eaten unprocessed, to spare metabolism being disrupted.

_I’ll take your word for it. But if you do without dairy, how do you make up for calcium?

o Make up for calcium? I would prefer to ask what milk ever replaced in the human diet in the first place! Up until domesticated cows were bred, neither milk, nor yogurt, nor cheese were available to our forebears. In spite of that serious deficiency, they appear to have evolved normal skeletons. Clearly, their food provided them with the necessary calcium.

o Those who were reared off any kind of cow’s milk or dairy showed no symptoms of rickets, whereas with the first three, who had been given bovine calcium, slight symptoms showed up.

o This was possibly due either to low blood calcium being caused by excess phosphate or to gut contents turning alkaline or, further, because cow’s milk calcium cannot be taken up by molecules adapted to the human body. It isn’t merely a matter of providing umpteen milligrams of a mineral, it also takes that mineral coming in organic form. Chalk contains calcium, so why not advise children to eat stones to grow nice teeth?

o ... to produce a shell, not to grow nice teeth, so far as I know. Dietary reasoning is typically simplistic. Actually, reality is unfortunately far more complex. I don’t know why pride always eggs us on to believe we know it all.
I recall a painful instance of just such simple-minded reasoning, with my mother falling a victim to it. She suffered a slipped disc, and the doctor diagnosed decalcification of the spine. She was, at once, prescribed a course of soluble calcium shots in the form of calcium gluconate, which is supposedly a form of calcium best handled by the body. Her backbone condition unfortunately failed to improve the slightest bit. Three months later, because she had turned virtually deaf, she had her eardrums looked at. They had turned white with a crust of calcium! The calcium had got lost in the mail. My mother remained deaf until she died.

Diseases at the dawn of Western civilization, by Mirko D. Grmek, published by Payot (excerpts, pp. 129-130). “No signs of rickets may be detected on High Period Greek and Egyptian bones. “Doctors, in the days of Hippocrates, never reported any cases of narrow pelvises. This was only described in the days of Soranos. Bone archaeology confirms that pelvic abnormalities were a rare occurrence and that Greek women were endowed with fairly large pelvises. The corpus of available bone archeology data currently available shows that rickets only became a fairly common condition under the new scenario in Europe after the Middle Ages.” Note: The increase of rickets was in step with the rise of animal farming. Could calcium possibly not be the boon it is cracked up to be?

_And so, as far as you’re concerned, milk wouldn’t have been more beneficial to her than those injections?

o She never gave up milk or dairy_quite the reverse. But that never staved off her decalcification. The body has to be fed every element in a form to which it is genetically suited, that is, incorporated into natural foods.

_Do you really think that 7,000 years wasn’t enough to spark off any evolution? Caucasians are said to be endowed with an enzyme that can break down lactose, whereas blacks aren’t.

o Lactase to break down lactose_yet another timely rumor to cheer up cheese lovers. But, as it happens, researchers are in disagreement over the matter. It is now believed that lactase is secreted roughly up until the age of five to break down lactose from mother’s milk, and that lactase secretion falls off with age.

picture sidebar Let’s look at a microscopically polarized bone cross-section of a Neanderthal man’s finger joint: As compared with modern man, the distribution of calcium is entirely different. In the first case, bone structure is dense and haphazard, which makes for flexibility and resilience, whereas, in modern man, calcium has precipitated so much that bone structure has expanded, making the bone hard and brittle. Note: Wild animals and Neanderthal man share the same bone structure, since neither feeds on milk of another species.

o In nature, milk is only ever for the offspring. You’ve put your finger on the second objection one could raise; namely, isn’t milk toxic for adults? It contains growth factors that, in the long run, could have unforeseeable effects_i.e. hormones could possibly get through the bowel lining and upset specific growth patterns.

o That would be a shade simplistic, but the matter is worth looking into. The calling of scientists should be to reassure us that our dietary habits entail no risk to our health. Genetic suitability to cow’s milk, for instance, should have been confirmed. So far, no serious attempt has been made to that effect; the question hasn’t even arisen.

o It would be more accurate to say that nutritionists have seized on the discovery of lactase to justify keeping dairy in our daily diet! Now, that is apparently a misguided interpretation. Whether babies are white, black, or yellow, the dilemma is the same: They all have to secrete lactase to break down the lactose in their mother’s milk. That has nothing to do with animal milk.
In any case, there is yet another flaw in such reasoning: Even if one could believe that the presence of lactase reflected an adaptation to cow’s milk, that would only settle the problem related to lactose. It would be unrealistic to assume that our genetic code had the potential to encode the necessary enzymes to neutralize the other substances present in cow’s milk that are not to be found in mother’s milk. A single kind of molecule that becomes enmeshed in our enzymatic system can entail terrible disruption.

_Maybe such fears are unjustified in light of the fact that it has never been shown that such discrepancies in structure existed.

o It has been known, for a long time, that it’s dangerous to give unaltered cow’s milk to newborns. Cow’s milk contains a high proportion of casein not found in mother’s milk. Babies can’t digest that protein and the swallowed mass can, therefore, form a ball that prevents digestion, to the extent of causing death. That’s a blatant example of “unadaptedness”!
Instead of drawing a lesson from that and concluding that there were perhaps other problems lurking behind it, pediatricians simply decreed that one merely had to add water and flour to milk. In that way, milk became digestible. But, what happens, further down the line, as far as metabolism is concerned? That question hasn’t prompted much interest.

o That’s another glib con. In French, between “formula” (known as “maternisé,” i.e. “motherized”) and “mother’s milk” (“maternel”), the honest housewife intuits no difference. In actual fact, all industrial milk manufacture does is fiddle with the proportions of casein, calcium, lactose, and a few of the constituents in cow’s milk, without due regard for differences in molecular structures. Food is a complex thing. It contains masses of intricate substances about which we can only have a very rough idea. For instance, because the proteins in cow’s milk have been subdivided into twenty different groups, people think they know what they’re talking about. It’s thought that by simply removing the b-lactaglobulines not found in mother’s milk, that everything is all right. That group of proteins is even suspected of causing sudden death in newborns_which distresses pediatricians not a little. Attempts at comforting parents are made in earnest. The pharmaceutical industry marketed formula that contained a lesser proportion of b-lactaglobulines. But, in actual fact, not much is known about the exact nature of the different proteins that belong to each of the 19 remaining categories.
Up until quite recently, it was completely unknown that a whole range of sugars found in mother’s milk didn’t occur in cow’s milk_i.e. gynolactoses, that were discovered in the ’70s and are thought to play an important role, which is still little understood, in the growth of babies.

_From all that, can one conclude that stopping the milk flow with injections and bottlefeeding babies was a serious mistake?

o Breastfeeding is coming back in slow stages. As for assessing the extent of the damage, it’s still too early to tell. The overwhelming majority of adults today didn’t experience much of the joys of suckling. What future consequences will that have for their bodies? I still remember the doctor saying to my wife after her first delivery: “Why bother breastfeeding your baby? They make such great powdered milks now!” According to some statistics, children who have been bottle-fed are more likely to develop cancer. The baby’s defenses must most certainly undergo indelible shock if, during the first weeks of its life, it is subjected daily to a flood of alien proteins_bovine proteins, to be precise.

_How is it that pregnant women often feel like eating cheese? You were telling me not long ago that such whims reflected dietary instinct?

o Such cravings are most probably projections of a real need for protein onto cheese, the taste of which reminds one of the flavors of high game that was such a delicacy for our forebears. Or, quite simply, they are influenced by all that talk about the need for calcium and the dangers of becoming decalcified.

_Presumably, you’d more likely advise them to dig into a fine raw minced steak with raw egg yolk and chopped onions, wouldn’t you?

o I would advise a slice of raw undressed meat. That would be safer minus the blended egg yolk and relish.

_That bamboozles your instincts. I get the message. But how can you uphold that meat was one of man’s initial foods? Primates are declaredly vegetarians.

o Here we go again, back to vegetarian doctrine. Monkeys were long believed to scorn flesh since they feed on fruit and wild plants. They had never been caught in the act of meat-eating. Accordingly, they weren’t assumed to be meat-eaters: That would have required conjuring them up eating raw meat given that they didn’t come up with cooking. Whichever way you look at it, raw meat is taboo as I was privileged to find out when I included it in raw-instinct eating.

“Chimpanzees’ dietary protein requirements in their natural forestlife.” An excerpt from the Paris Academy of Sciences, 1974, by C. Hladik and G. Viroben. “We have noted that chimpanzees’ dietary animal food intake was comparatively low; it amounts to 5% in weight of total intake. Although this is high in protein, it only provides a minor share of either the animal’s growth or sustenance requirement. Tests conducted suggest that chimpanzees’ animal food intake was merely additional to their nitrogen intake. Quite the other way, some plant samples turned out protein storehouses. This holds true for baphia Leptobotrys (drooping pea-cluster), a widespread stubby little tree chimpanzees feed on all throughout the year. The bulk of foliage and green stems make up some 28% of the basic weight of natural foods the animals feed on. That aggregate therefore supplies them with their protein staple as it does all the other large-size primates that were surveyed. Fruit amounts to 68% of dietary intake and does contribute 5% of protein (worked out on overall dry matter), namely a third of the overall protein intake.” Note: Chimpanzees don’t qualify as vegetarians. But in the final count they probably eat less meat than vegetarians on average, when they stretch a point.

o Almost every diet-conscious person comes within the undertow of vegetarianism. I was no exception at first. True enough, eating meat and flesh generally warrants due caution. Nourishing a body with alien proteins is quite dangerous. I believe that vegetarianism reflects some truth. It is an experience man had a very long time ago_that is, when he started eating meat without keeping to the laws of instinct. Nourishing the body with a food that the body wants and will be able to metabolize properly is quite different from nourishing the body with the same food when the body doesn’t want it. In the second instance, all kinds of molecules could slip though the grinding mill of dietary enzymes and trigger off devastation, the extent of which no one can as yet accurately assess.
One thing is for sure: It’s not by viewing the issue ideologically or hot-headedly that we’ll understand anything.
Getting back to our monkeys, I think we have to stick to the facts. The English ethnologist, Jane van Lawick Goodall, who lived with chimpanzees for twenty years, witnessed, apparently, a whole troop of them dismember a young wild boar. The best hunters in the troop knew how to catch it without having learnt archery. Primates have the instinct to hunt and eat their prey; it can be assumed, therefore, that animal protein is part or their natural diet. And as our genetic code is still very close...

o Their eating little of it doesn’t preclude its being useful and possibly even vital for their health. Nor is it necessarily bad for ours.
As I was saying, vegetarians are right to take up the cudgels against the usual ways of eating meat. It’s eaten cooked, which is toxic. And people overeat it, unheedful of instincts.
In a great many cases, I have noted that cooked meat disrupts people’s nervous systems, by generally arousing excitability, which has a ripple effect on one’s aggressiveness, anxiety and sex drive, as well as one’s entire mental make-up. I can well understand that some wise pundits centered on their inner states may have condemned it as throttling the spirit. Presumably, they didn’t consider trying raw meat as well, or else they would have realized that cooking was the culprit.
Clearly, raw meat stirs up no arousal, unless an animal is already poisoned with cooked food_in which case, the molecules that have built up in its tissues will touch off excitability in the meat eater, and he will incriminate the meat rather than the toxins.

_Is it not the actual killing of an animal that was proscribed by different religions?

o True enough, there’s something shocking about killing anything. It jars with our concepts of spirituality.
Mind you, Hitler and his henchmen were card-carrying vegetarians. But they didn’t shrink from mass murder. Perhaps one day neurophysiological disorders will be meaningfully correlated with adulterated foods and the rise of major political trends.

_Eating meat means eating death. I thought you were in favor of eating only live foods...

o That’s one of the battle cries of vegetarianism. One is rightly told that one is eating “carrion.” What better way to get you off your T-bone once and for all, as if you had a cube of human flesh on the tines of your fork. In actual fact, meat only looks dead; it’s teeming with life. Think of all the live yeasts thriving on it.
A cooked vegetable, by contrast, is stone dead. All that’s left of it is a scrawny corpse splayed out on your plate; isn’t that a carcass?

_A friend of mine always termed every meat-eater a scavenger. Barely has the animal been killed when all kinds of toxins reportedly start work on it.

o Well, you can tell him that nobody is compelled to eat meat when it has reached the stage of carrion. Rotting meat does, obviously, turn toxic after a while; it contains proteins, but instincts prevent us from eating it. The smell is repulsive; the tongue feels as though seared by the meat. It’s a good job we’re protected against a natural toxin. Carrion has been around in nature for a long time. And that the smell should repel us proves that man is by no means a scavenger.
Man isn’t a carnivorous animal either. Instincts clearly don’t allow us to eat fresh meat; an animal that’s been recently slain gives off an extremely disgusting smell.

_Carnivorous animals are said, in fact, to live less long than herbivorous ones.

o When a tiger catches a zebu, he savors the guts filled with partly digested grass. In reality, tigers are great vegetarians! And cows that graze swallow a large number of insects with their ration of grass. They are more carnivorous than one might think. According to some farming traditions, it was, moreover, common practice to give calves, during their growth spurts, a good two dozen eggs yolks to ensure future sound health.
I’m not in favor of meat; the less one eats of it, the better one feels in every way_I mean as far as respecting life, farm productivity, the economy, etc. is concerned. But I think that it’s wrong to be dead-set against meat from the outset. In some cases, meat can prove extremely useful therapeutically. What one has to know is when and how much of it one can eat, and we have the answer to that one_that is, we can trust to our instincts, which, to my mind, are more reliable than any theoretical, ethical, or other consideration.

_And what if our instincts led us astray? It seems quite plausible that meat could pervert our taste buds.

o Of course, taste alone isn’t enough to prove that meat is beneficial to us. We have to try and see the long-term effects of meat on human health. Whether it is easily digestible or not, whether one sleeps well on it, its effects on physical and mental health, whether it helps one put on weight, whether it helps cure diseases, etc. With hindsight, I have the feeling that results, on the whole, have been quite encouraging_provided one respects instinctive “cues” and that one avoids eating meat too frequently with other foods.

o There’s always some truth in any theory. Some combinations of proteins and sugars are obviously indigestible and probably harmful if they are repeatedly brought together. I admire the clearsightedness that his books patently convey. It’s anything but easy to make heads or tails of the prevalent dietary morass, especially when one knows that behind cooking lurk manifold dangers. But one can’t apply the rules established for cooked food to “initial eating.” In that case, as in every different case, to be objective, one has to start from scratch.
I was thinking a while ago about a rather spectacular case of meat eating; a nine-year-old little boy, suffering from nearsightedness, was undergoing a course of treatment with us. His muscles had been wasting for quite some years, so much so that he could barely set one foot in front of the other without being held up. When he sat down in an armchair, he couldn’t get up unassisted. Because medicine had given up on him, his parents had decided to give instinctotherapy a try. Truth be told, during his three-week stay, that child virtually ate a straight diet of meat, and he found meat so delicious that he clamoured for it at every meal (normally, we don’t serve meat at lunch). He only varied to have a few egg yolks and a little fish.

o Dietary balance, in my view, doesn’t mean balancing the menus, but balancing one’s body_namely, providing it with what it needs.

o One has to assume that all that sustained meat-eating reflected a real need that until then had remained hidden amidst all that habitual cooking. When I returned from a trip, I caught sight of three of my children (the ones brought up on raw food from birth) who were playing a very strenuous round of table-tennis against a fourth player. The game involved running round the table so as to change players with every service. I thought that they had recruited a new little friend among the newly arrived children whom I didn’t know. Drawing closer, I realized that it was that little near-sighted boy who was running about with them.

o When one thinks of all the children whose lives are wrecked by that illness, without medicine being able to provide them with a way out.
Given results like that, I can hardly cast aspersions on meat as do some vegetarians, and as I myself did at one time. Overly strict prohibitions that have no basis in science, are always suspicious; and one should guard against giving in to them or any other form of crankiness.
With our method, we’ve been afforded further insight_that is, instincts sometimes make meat appealing, especially meat left out in the open for a while, exactly as instincts do with any natural food. It would be surprising if instincts went wrong, and considering the results are good...

_According to you, then, meat left in the open was part of man’s intitial diet?

o According to archaeologists who have studied old bones whose flesh our ancestors ate, meat was eaten in substantial amounts some five million years ago.

o There are two schools of thought: one, involving the theory connected to hunting, and two, the theory relating to scavengers. If our forbears were hunters, they possibly ate meat fresh. If they gathered the remains of carcasses left over by predators, they had to eat them when they were in the process of going bad. In fact, one can tell apart several groups of animals. First of all, the fresh meat-eaters_i.e. carnivorous animals who instinctively catch their prey and eat it live. Most of the time, they only eat part of it, beginning with the guts; they then leave the body that begins predigesting itself through the effect of its own enzymes and yeasts that develop subsequently. When it becomes rather stale, it gives off another smell, that is felt to be appealing to a second group of animals including wart hogs, rodents, monkeys, etc. Finally, the body, if anything is left of it, turns into carrion. Then, scavengers step into the picture_i.e. jackals, vultures, etc. who find the smell of carcass_which we find repugnant_most certainly very pleasant, otherwise they wouldn’t go near it. The only thing left after that is the final clean-up performed by maggots, cockroaches, and other forms of life that disgust us, because they very much conjure up a feeling of danger associated with rotting meat, which is toxic for us, or our own death, which is another form of rot.
By comparing rib steak to carrion, as a matter of course, as your friend does, he’s jumping the gun as far as the natural process of things is concerned and is forcing disgust in where there is none. Raw meat seems wonderfully enjoyable and fragrant if one needs it, when it has matured just enough. Man probably belongs to the intermediary category of carnivorous animals, somewhere between carnivorous animals and scavengers. It’s not by chance if butchers allow meat to stand for a few weeks before selling it.

_And what of purines? That same vegetarian friend is always going on about the danger of purines.

o Open a book on biochemistry: You’ll read that purines are bases that consist of adenine and guanine, two of the four building blocks in DNA. Those molecules are at the core of life; they are part of all living cells in plants as well as animals. They are broken down in our metabolism into uric acid, which, if there’s too much of it in blood can be harmful, as can be any surfeit. But we can clear uric acid perfectly well; it passes into the waters in the form of urates. Our metabolism adapted to that condition long ago, since purines can be found in all living organisms_and hence, in all “initial” foods as well.
I never understood what vegetarian schools had against those hapless purines. Why not point an equally accusing finger at pyrimidines that make up the nucleus of cytosine and thymine which are the two other bases of DNA? Is it because pyrimidine sounds like “pyramid,” and that ancient Egypt conjures up a vivid spiritual past?
I can believe that once a great naturalist must have opened a book on metabolism to the chapter on uric acid. He must have noticed that “purine” sounded like “purim.” Not understanding any of those kabalistic formulas before his eyes, and as natural fertilizers have something of a bad reputation in those environments, he went off warring, like Don Quixote against windmills (of meat).

_If I understand your point, in nature, man doesn’t necessarily have to kill to eat meat.

o The same thing applies to chicken coops: The stone marten does it for the farmer. If the latter forgets to close the door for even one night, he has as much free meat gushing with blood as he likes. I do admit, however, that, in practice, carnivorous animals have been superseded by butchers.
In the beginning, I had hoped that we could live on milk and not have to kill, but the facts made me change my mind.

_What is your answer to people who oppose that to what is said in the Bible? One of the Ten Commandments unequivocally enjoins: “Thou shalt not kill!”

o That’s a slight mistranslation. The exact wording of the Hebrew text runs: “Thou shalt not murder,”or “Lo tirtzach” (Exodus, 20, 13) (“murder” in Hebrew “ratzach” implies violent killing with deliberate intent as opposed to slaughtering animals “shachat”)_which, as far as eating is concerned, stigmatizes, if anything, cannibalism. In the passages following the first giving of the Ten Commandments, Moses, on the contrary, prescribes offering up regular sacrifices. They sometimes had to slaughter an ox or sometimes a lamb (as many as two a day) on the altar, to find favor in the eyes of the Lord of Hosts. As hanging, drawing, and quartering weren’t wholly up to scratch in those days, I think it’s reasonable to suspect that the Everlasting had to make do with burnt aromas and the priests divided up the remains. In such a way, the Bible cleverly solved the problem of protein deficiency, well before the advent of dietetics.

_All kinds of meats were considered impure, all the same. The meat one could eat was very strictly limited.

o In Deuteronomy 14:4-5, it is decreed: “These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.” I’d be happy if I had such a range to choose from. Nowadays, game is becoming rare.

o The ancients always killed animals according to sacrificial rites. Even here in Europe, a few centuries ago, bears were hunted, and afterwards, the hunters prayed that the bear would forgive them for having killed him. His remains were even piously put back together and returned to the forest.
I think that what’s most important is the frame of mind one’s in when one kills an animal and that that’s what accounts for so much harm. Sacrificing an animal because one knows that its flesh will enable our children to build up their bodies in accordance with natural laws_that hardly seems criminal to me. Indeed Gurdjieff, a very wise man who came from the Caucasus, said that animals should be grateful knowing that their flesh was going to rise to a higher level once it was eaten by a superior being.

o Man is most assuredly not suited to being the prey of tigers, since he appeared on the scene much later than felines in the continuum of evolution. Tigers are clearly not encoded genetically to eat homo sapiens; undoubtedly, that explains why the idea of a tiger eating men seems so shocking, so unnatural to us. Tigers don’t normally attack people. They have to have already eaten a human being once. After that, they do it again and again unrelentingly and become known as man-eating tigers. But that can be easily accounted for: That flesh is undoubtedly the most highly seasoned meat that a tiger can ever hope to eat! The tiger himself gets entangled in the fine web of cooking; just think of all those remnants of tasty sauces and spicy dishes that must make the normal human being’s muscles reek_not to mention their guts! After that, gazelles must taste horribly bland. I think one has to consider things a bit more dispassionately. Creation is so made that all living beings live off one another. It’s like a huge ecological pyramid that was built up over great stretches of time. Humus absorbs minerals, plants draw on humus, animals eat plants, and some animals that are newly evolved live at the expense of the flesh of older animals. All in all, it seems to me that by prohibiting animal protein, one is going against the laws of nature.

_Still, I don’t find it very natural for a man to kill an animal. To do that, he needs a bow and arrow, a gun, or a knife. Those weapons are intelligent contrivances as well that weren’t part of the “initial” background.

o Be careful, you’re lapsing into philosophy. It’s not because I need some contrivance to capture or kill an animal that its meat won’t constitute an “initial” food as far as my metabolism is concerned. If a man is handicapped and can no longer go and get his own food, isn’t it better to make sure he is brought his daily ration, or should one explain to him that, given his condition, he should be able to get by on not eating? Do we know anything about the running techniques of our pre-intelligent ancestors, or what their strength was based on, if not the fact that they used stones, sticks, and tricks as some predators do? We have no training in the matter, our bodies have been built up on the basis of degenerate food; we can’t take ourselves as a reference. Maybe our physical strength has declined because our intelligence has taken over: skulduggery has overtaken strength.
To reiterate what I’ve said before, our genetic code is what matters: Are we equipped with the teeth, the digestive organs and, above all, the enzymes and the necessary means of clearance to break down meat without causing harm to ourselves?

_Vegetarians point out, on that count, that our canine teeth are too small and that our intestines, being ten meters long, are too long to digest meat_which accounts for fermentation in the bowels that one can diagnose through smelly feces.

o They can rest easy. Human canines have what it takes, and to spare, to bite into a whole leg of lamb or into a chicken drumstick.

o When the body needs it, even fowl_surprising as it may seem_takes on a very good taste. Why should there be any difference between one meat and another? It appears that we are even more suited for the flesh of fowl than that of mammals_possibly because it’s easier to find injured birds in nature. Flying has always been a dangerous sport. Think of François Truffaut’s celebrated savage child (“l’enfant sauvage”) from the Aveyron, who could catch and pluck birds with surprising skill.

o Except you’re forgetting the most important thing: With instinctotherapy, you only eat what’s good! If any food seems bad to you, you don’t eat it. The day raw turkey grabs you, or duck, left out in the open for a while, appeals to you more than the best prepared duck in orange sauce, you’ll see all your preconceptions disappear into thin air. People always assume that one has to polish off everything on the table. Instincts, on the contrary, restore the freedom of pleasure.
Moreover, I insist on reassuring you as regards the length of your intestines. They are exactly 6.15 meters long (15.52 feet) and have everything it takes to digest what your palate control allows to get in. Its functioning was fine-tuned over a period of millions of years. All that squabbling over length is nonsens: Every living species is suited to the length of its intestines and vice versa! Food doesn’t freely ferment as it haphazardly makes its way through the bowel; intestinal flora is remarkably stable, contrary to what was once thought. The replication of germs is strictly kept down by regulatory factors that themselves had been genetically encoded.

_They were encoded with information for “initial” foods, if I think along your lines_which still leaves us in a quagmire over meat, if meat in fact doesn’t belong with “initial” foods.

o Ultimately, only experience can decide. Cooked meat causes no end of problems. Not so with raw meat, so long as the animal has been properly fed. It’s clear that the wrench in the works is due to adulteration and not to the meat itself.
In point of fact, the issue of meat-eating would have never arisen, had it not been for cooking. Short-circuiting our instincts leaves us in utter darkness. No longer can we tell good from bad. We are reduced to endless dietary conjecture that is either dubious or contradictory and, in any case, so involved as to defy being put into practice. Babies can see the light better than we can. Many’s the time we’ve seen a suckling drop the breast when its mother bit into a fruit. The fragrance thus released wafts up to the child’s nostrils, his instincts make the milk taste aversive, and he won’t let up crying until his request for fruit is fulfilled.
As it happens, a baby a few weeks old will react the same to his mother biting into some meat. He cries blue murder for it and settles down directly the coveted morsel lands in his mouth. He then sucks and chews it protractedly and drops off like an angel, in spite of the strip of carrion locked between his murderous jaws.
Quite frankly, I think it best to drop prejudices and stick to facts. I am bound to say we have recorded the most arresting recoveries ever since we shelved dairy and reinstated animal protein. We are talking about recoveries from leukemia, cancer, disseminated lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and so on.

_You surprise me. It is known fact that the incidence of cancer is higher in countries where people eat more protein. So, how can you talk about curing cancer on a diet loaded with all kinds of protein like meat, poultry, eggs, all sorts of fish, mollusks_and why not insects while you’re at it?

o Quite right. Some locusts release a most delightful chocolaty flavor even John the Baptist didn’t look down his nose at. If, like our fellow primates, we went in for insects a little more, we might be able to dispense with meat. After all, we must be better adapted to eating insects than elephant meat.

_Could that be the answer to vegetarianism? Do you honestly believe diet holds the key to curing terminal diseases?

o Facts speak for themselves, but I make no explicit claims. Wouldn’t want to risk lining up for indictment as a miracle-curer. Nevertheless, statistics are currently advertising the close link between cancer and diet. Statistically, overeating protein seems a contributory factor, but I would guard against sweeping statements. I have known patients recover from cancer with terminal prognosis, instinctively clamoring for large amount of raw meat. We had one such person here, an architect with terminal cancer three years after initial surgery on the bowel. His left lung was full, subsequent to a discharge due to pleural cancer. He had two secondaries in his right lung and some kind of melanoma on one of his fingers. In his very first week on instinctotherapy, he took to eating almost 1 1/2 pounds of raw beef daily and carried on for several months. Within weeks, his left lung had deflated and the gradual subsidence of his pleural tumor showed up on x-rays. The secondaries in his right lung also went down, as did the growth on his finger, with the skin resuming a healthy appearance. We actually witnessed little white spots bespeckling the brown tumor and joining up as they would in gel-cultured cells, with normal cells having apparently developed from a few healthy cells. After seven months, the man’s condition had improved enough for him to go back to work.
To point out an interesting detail, during that period, the grey hair, that grizzled that 50 year-old man’s temples, had turned dark again, so that when I saw him come back, I mistook him for his younger brother.

o Certainly not. Instinct should be recommended to them. By being in tune with their bodies, they can daily discover their food-drug, which is always unforeseeable. Every general statement deflects us from the reality of our present needs, that are always varying and different from one minute to the next. Even if a particular cancer patient is cured after eating a diet of raw meat, that same diet could prove dangerous for another patient. And conversely, even if eating meat is apparently statistically linked to the development of cancer, one cannot conclude that it is useful to prevent a particular cancer patient from getting it. The problem is the same every time it’s a matter of advising a food or prescribing a drug.

o It’s the only thing than can. Yet, many other mistakes are made in statistical reasonings. For instance, in most studies conducted on the connection between food and cancer, meat protein and milk protein are lumped together haphazardly. Ensuingly, the conclusions come to are generally blurred.
Imagine for a moment that milk causes cancer and that meat is necessary to be cured. The rate of cancer would thus record an increase in areas where people ate a lot of protein due to the fact that, on average, they eat a lot of dairy. However, by indiscriminately indicting all the different sources of protein, statistics encourage patients to give up meat.
One thing has to be made clear: Statistics can only confirm or refute pre-existing theories. As milk and meat have never been told apart from the point of view of genetic adaptation, overall statistics concerning amount of protein intake can only add to the confusion that cancer research specialists are miring in. From the outset, the viewpoint of instinctotherapy keeps us well above this kind of problem; there’s no longer any question of advocating or prohibiting any food but simply of restoring to everyone the exercise of the freedom of instinct. The body has the right to get what it needs, whether that be meat or any other natural food.

o That can happen, with cases of leukemia, epilepsy, depression, allergy, myasthenia gravis, multiple sclerosis, etc.
But, mind you, it doesn’t just take eating meat to cure those diseases! In a general way, one would be deluding oneself if one thought that a particular food correlated with a given disease and that all one had to do was eat it to cure the disease. Things aren’t that simple. Depending on whether one is deficient or toxemic, a whole range of food in a given order will be needed, each food eaten the right amount of, and at the right moment, in order to restore health. As soon as conditions come right, recovery will be under way. But there can be no prior marching orders. Every individual practice will necessarily be different. Nature is complex and especially so when out of synch. There is no linear cause yielding a constant effect in two different people. A single shift in someone’s health background may determine a variety of diseases, and likewise deteriorations of various kinds may cause a single disease. Basically, there can be no mathematically predictable dietary prescription based on diagnosis.

o Instinctotherapy goes against the grain of the principle underlying every medical and dietary practice, in the diagnosis-prescription twosome. Sounds strange, doesn’t it? There can be no urging: here, take this, it works wonders for...

o And so it should. We all unconsciously seek certainties. Beetroot works wonders against cancer. That’s how people delude themselves into thinking themselves safe. So that when we are stricken by disease, we ‘ll know what to push for. Beetroot will make up for our mistakes. We’ll have the redeemer within reach. The truth, however, is far more complex. Try flicking through a textbook on metabolism and you’ll get the picture.

o Well, at least you’ll figure out why doctors don’t grasp a thing about the question of health! The human machine is far too complicated, every situation is individual, with far too many unknown quantities. One is reduced to guesstimates, and forever thinking one has hit on a miracle cure. Unfortunately, fine theories never keep any promises.

o I don’t believe that instinctotherapy could fall victim to such a trap, since instinctotherapy is based on querying. Its premise is to dispute that “non-initial” food is truly adapted to us genetically. Beyond our stark challenge, experience has to provide the answers, and why not start with personal experience? Everyone can discover for themselves exactly how dietary instincts operate, and later, reflect on the improvements in health they have felt, and whether they are dealing with minor complaints or major diseases.

_You do claim, however, not in so many words, of course, that instinctotherapy can cure anything.

o I think that a diet that is in keeping with natural laws of nutrition can only help restore the soundness of one’s diathesis and, hence, improve prognosis for most diseases.
It is always assumed that disease merely results from extraneous pathogenic factors. And yet, it is clear that the shift toward cure or deterioration, depends on the balance struck between the body’s immune potential and destructive outer forces. Therefore, no stone should be left unturned, not only in an attempt to curb destructive outer forces, but also to improve one’s diathesis. It’s typically not feasible to change much in pathological factors (at least without impairing the body’s integrity_just think of antibiotics, antivirals, antimitotics, fungicides, anthelmintics, etc). It’s in our interest to improve our diathesis as much as possible. Now, one’s diathesis, in turn, depends largely on two factors: 1) genetics and 2) nutrition. As regards genetics, there’s little to be done about that at this point in time. So, ultimately, dietary factors will be decisive! The problem involves affording the body the necessary nutrients that will restore health. And this, I believe, instinctotherapy can do more quickly and unfailingly than any conventional prescription.

Diet and cancer. L. Cohen “In favor of Science,” Jan. 1988, p. 20. “The right kind of diet might help reduce the number of dietary cancers. Such nutritional advice is backed up by epidemiological surveys and, as yet, limited though promising experiments on animals.” Within the evolutionary timespan, human diet has very recently altered and very fast at that. Anthropological investigations of human diet in twentieth century hunter-fruit pickers like the Kalahari Desert Bushmen in South Africa, distill a clear picture of evolution in human diet and the possible impact of dietary changes. On the basis of collated data, Boyd Eaton and Malvin Konner of Emory University infer that prehistoric men living under temperate climes ate 20% of their intake in fats. This amounts to approximately half the amount Americans eat. Moreover, prehistoric men ate proportionately more unsaturated fats than we do. They ate around 45 grams of fiber a day (as against Americans who eat 15 grams or less) and four times as much vitamin C. If modern man (Homo sapiens) well and truly appeared on Earth some 30-50,000 years ago, for upwards of 90% of his history, the human race have eaten a vitamin C, calcium-, fiber-rich diet, which was also a low-fat one. In other words, modern man is now eating out of step metabolically and digestively as compared to the way he used to eat. The fruit-picking hunters’ diet still endured (incorporating only minor changes when agriculture came in on the scene about 10,000 years ago) up until 250 years ago. At the time, the Industrial Revolution worked a thorough change into human dietary patterns. People started eating more fat, less roughage, more refined sugar and fewer starchy carbohydrates. We are saying that modern man’s diet is abnormal. His prehistoric physiology has to make do with a grossly unsuitable diet. It is suspected that dietary changes connected to a sedentary lifestyle have given a fillip to the size of the human frame, but have also nudged up obesity, speedy maturation in young people and chronic diseases like coronary thrombosis and cancer. Those diseases occurred less commonly even in the elderly in Western culture in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and are still almost unheard of in present-day fruit-picking hunters. Note 1: It is especially worth noting the stop-the-presses wording of the opening lines: “The right kind of diet might help reduce the number of dietary cancers.” That is not unlike a statement of the obvious! Note 2: Scientific advances each year bring more grist to the mill of basic raw instinct nutritional principles. One’s best bet is, therefore, to stand by those principles for the time being, biding our time until science even further confirms them.

o It’s impossible, from the outside, to know exactly what is happening within a body. The complexity of vital processes goes far beyond our ken. For nutrition alone, there are more than two thousand different enzymes at work. And those fermenting agents are not merely the simple substances they were once thought to be! Every day, on a microscopic level, far more complex processes, unexpected attributes, and what look like innumerable sleights of hand, are brought to light. The most highly educated doctor would be up the creek.
As for instincts, they are intimately in step with what goes on inside the body. Instinct has had millions of years to learn how to recognize all the useful data and monitor _like a huge computer _the daily intake of fuel, lubricants, building materials, tools, mending equipment, and anything that will make for the best and quickest restoration. Instinct never errs in diagnosis. Instinct steps in before diseases breaks out. Instinct keeps up with changes the body undergoes from one minute to the next. It takes care of everything: from calorie intake, balancing sugars, fats, and protein, intake of water, vitamins, mineral salts, minerals, medicinal substances_not to mention everything medicine hasn’t yet discovered. I don’t believe there’s a better doctor than instinct.
And, instinct is a doctor that doesn’t land you with a bill, but rather added pleasure.

_What appeals to me in your approach is that I’m allowed to find within myself the doctor that I have always looked for without.

o I think that’s the most crucial point: learning how to stop relying on outside help, to stop being tied to medicine’s apron strings, to recognize that nature has foreseen everything, that nature has encoded within us everything necessary to maintain proper health, that one doesn’t have to go on racking one’s brains for answers_with all the attending risk of error_but that those answers are given to us through bodily contentment.

o Of course not, therapy involves administering treatment, tacking on some kind of outside contrivance. Instinctotherapy entails doing away with every contrivance that might lead the body astray, in order to enable the body to find the highway to good health all on its own. That means giving freedom of health back to the body.

_Isn’t all that too rosy to be true? Curing through pleasure_that’s unheard of....

o Why should that come as a surprise? Pleasure is what makes the world go round. It should quite naturally be expected for pleasure to lead to sound health.

_A therapy that isn’t a therapy, but cures all diseases, more quickly and effectively than any therapy. That’s reason enough to close down all the hospitals.

o Be careful. Don’t mistake my meaning. Medicine remains invaluable every time nature alone can no longer set things right. Beyond certain limits, outside help remains necessary. Imagine you broke your shinbone; you’re not going to wait for your bone to heal by virtue of your raw diet! The surgeon in the emergency room will undoubtedly do a better job.
Conversely, however, to recalcify the fracture, nothing holds a candle to nature.

o On the contrary. I only think that it’s high time doctors took dietary factors into account and looked into the consequences of genetic unsuitability of traditional diets. My aim, setting aside any ambition, is to provide traditional medicine with a missing link. That’s not what I would call being against medicine.

_Medicine, however, hardly belongs to what you’d call “initial.” It’s a kitbag of “intelligent contrivances,” to use your lingo.

o I’m not against contrivances, so long as they are genuinely ingenious. The only trouble is that human intelligence still seems a dash too close to that of chimpanzees. We only stop and think once suffering takes hold of us and makes us aware of our carelessness. We lack the foresight necessary to imagine beforehand the consequences of what we do.
Intelligence, undoubtedly, enables us to blunder more than all the animals in the world. Intelligence doesn’t fall within the rules of adaptation, it allows one to improvise all kinds of behavior, based on random figments of our imagination that have only the remotest connection with reality. Just think of agrochemistry: Poisons are devised to kill predators with a sole view to immediate crop yield, and when one realizes that the ecological balance _what our very existence depends on _is being destroyed, one can’t help but think that those things should have been worked out beforehand.
The same holds for cooking. At first, one only thinks of one’s pleasure and, when one witnesses the damage, one no longer has the strength to shake out of it.
No, I’m not criticizing intelligence or resourcefulness. Those are the only superior traits we have over animals. I don’t really see what would be left to us if we had to give them up. Only, I think it’s high time we admitted that such intelligence is not very far-reaching when it comes to the mysteries of life, and that our artfulness is always dangerous. We inevitably skip over some natural processes and, because of that, break down rules of harmony that were built up over millions of years of evolution. Cooking, in my view, is the most telling instance of just such an aberration: The skill that supposedly gives us pleasure corners us into frustration and dooms us to disease.

o Only intelligence can help us overcome the mistakes of intelligence. Instinct was not designed to solve the problems we later created with our intelligence, as the latter constitutes a more recent factor in the history of evolution. Once cooking takes over, for instance, instinct only gets us in deeper. One has to become aware of the problem to nip the process in the bud. The same problem crops up all over. Agrochemistry has committed us to such an economic system that only becoming aware of the danger threatening the environment and a concerted effort can prevent disaster in the long run. The planet also pays for our mistakes through disease.

o As you pointed out, medicine is an intelligent contrivance. It has all the advantages and all the drawbacks. It often gives good immediate results. But, in the long run, the artfulness that it indulges in leads out into the unknown. Medicine makes do with treating symptoms, without worrying enough about the actual outcome of what it does. Medicine hardly takes into account the side effects of drugs. To really know what one is doing when one treats a disease, one first has to understand the real meaning of that disease. It might simply mean understanding a process whose nature we fail to grasp_man is far from understanding everything. Take poliomyelitis, for instance. The first symptoms are identical to those of the flu. As there is fear of running a temperature, doctors freely prescribe antithermics; now, the virus of that disease replicates ten times faster when body temperature is lowered by half a degree. Later, it’s considered surprising that paralysis sets in due to lesions in the spinal cord.

o Every time outside help is called in_whether it be in the form of chemical or natural medication_one conjures up, from the outset, a diseased state. One imagines pathogenic factors that have to be defeated, some disruption or other that one quite reasonably wants to put an end to, and one considers that the sooner the disease is cured, the better it is for one’s health. One aims for cures without due concern for the turn things will ultimately take.
However, it seems possible that disease is necessary in order to restore health in the long run. Old-style medicine advised letting the flu develop in a full-blown way; that perhaps wasn’t such bad advice, after all.

o I’d begin by trying to understand what was happening inside my body. That wouldn’t be too easy either, since that disease stupefies you. Better think of all that before getting oneself contaminated!

_It’s well known that typhoid develops from a germ that replicates in the bowel so much so that it ends up invading the lining and permeating the blood.

o That is salmonella, which is also known as Eberth’s bacillus, and is passed on quite easily.

o About 6% of cases issue in death_that is, if the patient is on traditional food. The mistake one makes is to turn against that hapless germ as if it was the devil’s henchman, instead of wondering why it replicated in the body in the first place, or, better still, why the body let it go ahead. I’d go so far as to ask: What was the purpose of such a thing?

_Personally, I derive comfort from thinking that there are ways of reining in such a disease.

o You’ll feel less at ease when I tell you that the antibiotic that was typically administered against it, up until quite recently, was chloramphenicol_which proved liable to set up aplastic anemia. Between typhoid and leukemia, I don’t know which I’d choose.
New antibiotics have now been spored, whose unforeseeable effects will, in 30 years’ time, come to light.

_But surely, medicine has well and truly lengthened life expectancy! In the nineteenth century, people lived to be 45 years old on average; nowadays, people live to 77.

o We’d live even longer perhaps if the chink in the armor had been closed. I, for one, am very mistrustful of statistics. First of all, infant mortality has been drastically reduced, due mostly to better hygiene, which significantly lengthens average lifespan. That means nothing in terms of longevity, which one obtains by counting the number of people over the age of five, for instance. Moreover, one mustn’t forget that people, having lived to a ripe old age and who lengthen our statistics, were born over 77 years ago. Such results should hardly make us feel that we can in any way predict the lifespan of our children, who are stuffed with baby food and antibiotics that weren’t around in those days! It’s undeniable that medicine snatches us out of the clutches of death in respect of all kinds of disease that, in the past, went awry. It remains to be seen whether any benefit really accrues from that. Life expectancy has been lengthened; that’s all well and good. But, one never hears disease-ridden long life extolled; don’t senility, paralysis, strokes, or even cancer threaten to mar those very years we gain from other quarters? People would typically rather not think of that.
And yet, that’s the clincher. Between dying at 60 of a bout of fever that takes one over the top for good and all, and lingering institutionalized death after years of senility, boredom, and merciless therapy, I still would make the first choice. Another interesting point: Since the beginning of the century, tremendous strides have been made in the treatment of infective diseases. This progress has been extolled as having extended life span; but as though by magic, the fact that, in the same time, people have started eating much more raw food, has been overlooked.

_Are you asserting that medical advances were won thanks to raw eating endeavours?

o It all adds up. I’m not in a position to say exactly what present-day lifespan owes to medical progress and what to greater dietary consciousness, but, obviously, the two can come together. Statistics, for one, don’t tell them apart. There is some likelihood, therefore, that pharmacological progress has been given credit for positive results that are, in fact, due to the increase in the percentage of raw food in one’s daily diet. One shouldn’t forget that before vitamins were discovered and they were found to be destroyed by heat, people didn’t know that a 100% cooked diet was lethal.

_It doesn’t look as if you set great store by drugs. But if one day you hurt yourself and your cut turns septic and perhaps even painful, won’t you be happy that disinfectants and painkillers were invented?

o When the “wild child” from the Aveyron_whom Truffaut made into the hero of his well-known film_was found, he had 26 scars from various bites. He had most probably not cared a fig about disinfecting his wounds. And yet, they had scarred quite nicely. On some human Neolithic skulls, there are round holes that some archaeologists have identified as being the result of trephination. The edges of the bone sometimes appear to have reduced, which certainly wouldn’t have developed had infection occurred.
The existence of trephinations in prehistoric times had caught my fancy years before we started on instinctotherapy; how could our ancestors embark on such operations without disinfectants? I have always been told that asepsis declaredly gave formal impetus to surgery getting off the ground.
All that becomes much more coherent in our experience, which is, in fact, an attempt at reconstructing an original background; in a body not exposed to cooking, infection most certainly never developed. For over 20 years, we have never used any disinfectant whatever, meaning neither myself nor my next of kin. And yet, we have had occasion to hurt ourselves in extremely contaminating conditions; that is, while restoring old houses, raising cattle, pigs, and horses, bringing down our heels on nails clogged with manure, rusty barbed wire, you name it.

o Serum against tetanus can set off anaphylactic shock. As far as I’m concerned, I prefer facing immediate shock with the germ. I fully understand, moreover, the doctor’s point of view; if an accident happened and he had prescribed the shot, he’d not be running any risk. However, if he doesn’t prescribe anything, he’s letting himself in for all sorts of trouble. If I were in his shoes, I’d give a shot for every single scratch, especially in that on ordinary food, you can’t count on normal immune potential.

o Only once. My daughter Sylvia slipped and fell on ice and was bitten by a dog in the head. Confident that a body fed on “initial” food would recover, we didn’t worry about possible after-effects until one day she complained of a pain in her head. Her scalp had developed a welt as large as the palm of my hand. You can imagine my disappointment. I immediately drove her to the doctor’s who burst the abscess, inserted a drain, disinfected everything he could and gave me a good dressing-down for not having acted more quickly. The discussion even turned threatening when I refused antibiotic shots. I was sure that scarring would occur spontaneously, and I was proved right.
That mishap troubled me for a very long time. I wondered why that infection had developed, whereas the more serious cuts I had seen had never worsened in any other case. Why hadn’t infection recurred? And yet, a few germs must have remained concealed under the skin. I had to wait a few years before getting to the bottom of that episode. Before the doctor intervened, my daughter had got into the habit of bingeing on sandwiches and yogurt at school. Then, she had decided to stop, having seen the results and felt the pain.

_Can’t be easy for you to admit what you’re telling me. Not everybody becomes infected from every cut. That depends on the germ that enters the wound, the body’s staying power, etc.

o Of course. I’m not saying that if you eat cooked food, every scratch of yours will become infected.
It is still, nonetheless, surprising that for all the cuts, including deep ones, that we have examined among people eating initial diets, we have never seen anyone become even remotely infected or require the slightest treatment _and we have never taken any precautionary measures to achieve asepsis. However, if one goes against the rules of instinctotherapy, a wound in the process of scarring can actually become reinfected for no apparent reason.

o I only once, in all the cases I’ve had, resorted to antibiotics and even then it was for psychological comfort. We had been asked to take on board a woman who was quite out of sorts. She was suffering from depression, she had psoriasis for many years, she was generally faint, had fleeting pains, and had neurovegetative disorders. The doctors diagnosed her as “dwindling.” When she started out on instinctotherapy, she had just been granted status as a totally disabled person. She remained unable to get up for several weeks; I was rather worried about her. Every time she ate a mouthful of sweet fruit, she went blue in the face with cyanosis of the lips and extremities. Gradually, she moved up from a quarter of a pear to a half a pear, then a whole pear _each time, experiencing the same reaction. Soon, she was able to stand up. She was eating over two pounds of pears a meal when the beginning of an abscess in her foot showed up. However, there wasn’t the slightest sign of a cut; the infection had obviously developed from within.

o This had begun with a diffuse swelling that had gradually contracted to a little red ring that was sensitive to pressure. As I wasn’t willing to take any risks and she was still very distressed, I sent for the doctor who ritually prescribed her some antibiotic or other. After a week of treatment, the abscess had completely cleared up.

o A month later, the exact same red spot reappeared on her forearm, narrowed little by little until it formed a nice, little abscess similar to the first one, so that, this time, she chose to let it follow its natural course. Pus flowed for several days, and then it dried up spontaneously, without any need for antibiotics. And this time, the red spot went away for good. The patient recovered splendidly, went back to work, and became my secretary for a good ten years _all the while keeping her disabled person’s insurance benefit. Failing official subsidies...

_According to your description, one might conclude that her body wanted to form that abscess, at all costs, as if it wanted to clear toxic waste. Isn’t that a somewhat simplistic view that could lead other people to refuse treatment?

o I’m sorry to say that the traditional medical view is even more simplistic.
Medicine manages wonderful things. Techniques for treatment are as suitable as they can be for bodies subjected to ordinary eating conditions. Those techniques enable to get round all sorts of drawbacks resulting from cooking toxemia, to ward off all kinds of hazards that don’t exist in a natural dietary setup. Sadly, medicine has fallen fundamentally short of its aim: It doesn’t take into account the root cause of the ailments it claims to provide treatment for. It would , of course, be nonsensical to advise someone to refuse treatment on the grounds that the general premises were wrong!
On the other hand, I consider it my duty to draw people’s attention to the fact that these theories are not error-proof, and that the therapeutic principles that are inferred from them, though efficient in the short term, might potentially involve serious long-term dangers which no one can as yet gauge. Chance had it that I was led to observations that no one had ever made, given that no one had, until now, acquired a range of experience similiar to mine. I am, therefore, in spite of myself, faced with this problem of conscience; I feel I must inform people, even at the risk of some people misusing the information.
Naturally, whatever conclusions I can draw from my experiments remain subject to the burden of proof, as does any theory. I do very much hope that more “favored” researchers than myself will further investigate the issue.

o Well, I’ve tried to publicize my approach, and I have come up against sheer and utter benighted prejudice_not the least of which springs from medical quarters. The private sector and the media have, however, proved more open-minded. We are now a household word with a broader section of the public. Ever since I’ve been in France, various official bodies have taken an interest in my theories. Moreover, former researchers who turned a deaf ear to them, ten or fifteen years ago, have bowed out to younger and more open minds. In Montpellier, ongoing research has been carried out on autoimmune diseases, along lines that accomodate my contention that man is genetically unsuited for “non-initial” food. In Paris, as well, the College de France Neurobiological Laboratories have encouraged me to undertake, under their aegis, a set of experiments intended to evince the inborn nature of dietary aversion or preference in rats. Meanwhile, some university professors are beginning to give my theories a hearing in their lectures, most notably in Germany. On my side of the contract, I have set up a minor laboratory at the National Instinctotherapy Center with a wide-ranging research curriculum in an attempt to come up with figures and statistics likely to catch the eye of scientists in all the relevant fields.

_You have plenty on your plate and it’s piping hot, if you’ll pardon the joke.

o Work’s not lacking. Money is the only snag. For who could possibly want to subsidize our kind of research? Certainly not doctors, nor chemists, nor, indeed, pharmaceutical giants, nor food industry fat cats, nor researchers either, who are already starved for money for their own research_not to mention restaurant-goers.

o That would be very green. Social tidal waves are never set in motion by private individuals. Nor can even prominent statesmen spark off a war against the better judgement of a crowd. At the very best, they can channel existing trends and act as catalysts in firming up as yet unmustered forces.
Perhaps, such could be my contribution: To define more plainly thoughts that are somewhat confusedly trying to see the light of day. Subconsciously, don’t we all know that there’s a rub somewhere in the cooking tradition? Even a philosopher like Saint Augustine bemoaned not being able to shake his gluttony. All the cultural furbelows that gastronomy has to shroud itself in, do, willy-nilly, advertise definite unease. Step by step, and against the tide of resistance, science is inching forward and deciphering the causal effects of dietary habits in the maze of pathology. Dietary theory, whether medical or alternative, has already reclaimed some ground by reinstating raw salads. I’m merely throwing in a useful tool; to wit, defining dietary instinct and stating the premise of initial foods’ relevance to our genetic background. In this way, reason can make its voice plain and base nutritional science on a sound scientific footing.

_There’s another war in progress, i.e. alternative medecine versus so-called official medicine.

o Not so very long ago, it was guerilla warfare. Alternative medicine had taken to the bush. Their advocates felt few and far between. In the main, members of the public considered them weirdos and remained faithful to ruling medicine. At this point in time, though, the old queen is drooping under the burden of her bunglings. A growing swarm of renegades are beginning to rebel against her czarist diktas. Her love potions arouse suspicion. Her lethal concoctions are coming under fire, and her placebo strategies are gibed at.
For over a century, she has drummed on about her pending victory over cancer. But truth to tell, she still hasn’t delivered the goods. The glaring failure of chemotherapy and its side-effects, that so often drown out their initial purpose, has caused bitter disenchantment. Even antibiotics land us in a quandary. Germs have the brazenness to adapt, becoming the more dangerous. And to cap it all, most diseases are proving to be “auto-immune,” meaning that our immune system, credited with upholding law and order inside the body, is consorting for our cell-by-cell destruction. The high court of health, upon which rests the very basis of any recovery, is proving guilty of high treason. What a comeuppance! And science stands there like a dunce stuck in front of his blackboard too brainless to solve his set of equations. The further science moves into the field, the more befuddled and entangled that data become, so much so that the whole class has begun to think that there is no answer.
I happen to think that something must urgently be done. When there is no resolving a problem, one’s best bet is to go back to square one_as one would in mathematics or physics. In this particular instance, I don’t believe there is any way out, short of changing one’s reference point. When calculations become involved, all it takes is changing the axes of coordinates for everything to come right as though by magic. The same obtains when adding up fractions. What a waste of time if one doesn’t, from the outset, reduce denominators to the smallest common multiple_that causes every schoolboy’s forehead to break out in a cold sweat.

o Yes, but one feels so much better when answers come up thick and fast! The fear of failure vanishes into thin air breathing comes easier; a weight has been lifted.

o That’s exactly how I feel. Medicine has been banging its head, for eons, against walls of its own making. It has locked itself into a set of constructions that have made health a mathematical impossibility. And why should that be? Simply because there has been no taking into account the common denominator of all the beings in Creation; namely, genetic relevance to our primary environment. In actual fact, medicine has obfuscated the most basic evidence.

o A disastrous one, indeed, given the consequences. And yet, Hippocrates had set it all up. “Find the cause of causes,” he once said, 2,400 years back! I do believe that if the initial cause of diseases had been sought, the dietary factor would have very quickly come up for consideration. And everything would have become a far sight simpler.
Having chosen as one’s starting point the concept of genetic suitability to our original environment, the thread of theory unwinds like a skein unimpeded in its motion. One strikes the shortest path through every nook and cranny of experimentation and logical sequences unfurl effortlessly. Failing that, there is no possible taxonomy of facts garnered from random analysis, reasoning gets bogged down and every possible contradiction and everything is forever all tangled up, as if one had started from the wrong end of the bobbin.
Just think how much people agonize over a diet. All the effort that goes into ingredient charts for foods, solving the riddles of metabolism, and we’re not through with it yet! One of my biologist friends is currently exercising his wits on a topic that could appear childishly simple. He is endeavouring to assay the calorie content of fructose, a widespread sugar akin to glucose, whose metabolic properties remain unexplained. All his trials require highly sophisticated calorimeters of which there are only two or three in the world. That explains why the work has been in the doldrums, right up until now. He has already worked, for several years, locking volunteers up in this equipment.
The public has no idea of the effort required to master a single nugget of information; in this case, describing a single molecule. And our physiology is bulging out of jillions of parameters! Knowledge branches out into subdivisions whose numbers are always increasing and ever more specialized. Researchers themselves don’t get to communicate; they no longer have the time to read the countless journals that come out daily on topics that are, in fact, closely related. Nobody can have an overall picture that is penetrating enough to drill through to the processes that lie hidden within our bodies and within our cells. After a century of painstaking labour, dietitians, when asked what one should eat to be healthy, always come up with the same old story: a balanced diet.

o More like a splashdown! As needs vary from one day to the next, a balanced diet is, perforce, unbalancing.

oWhen I asked my cancer specialist, after my radiation treatment, what I should eat to enhance my likelihood of survival, he shrugged his shoulders and answered: “Whatever you enjoy.” Then, seeing that I wasn’t satisfied, he pulled out from a drawer, a little red box of 24 pink synthetic vitamin pills. I still remember how they rattled in my pocket as I wended my way home. I was unable to repress my rage, so great was my feeling of helplessness; that pathetic talisman landed up in a pile of rubble before I reached home.
Dietetics has been unable to provide us with the answers we had hoped for, quite simply because dietetics has always stolidly flown in the face of basic laws of biology, whereas what was at stake was getting off the horns of the nutritional dilemma, our main dilemma in life. And yet, they didn’t have far to look; “bio” means life.
When we talk about biology, we are really talking about genetics. All we had to do was to wonder whether our instincts were genetically adapted to cooked food, and things would have come full circle.

_As a matter of fact, medicine should have done the same thing centuries ago in respect to pathology.

o Before inventing viper powder and iron fillings, before launching into endless subjecture on the effects of masturbation_eighteenth century doctors held that inexplicable activity responsible for most diseases particular to Homo erectus_before waging war against germs and other microscopic animals hidden under the microscope and before accusing them of every evil, before attacking defenseless bodies with X-rays or cobalt bombs, before manufacturing an overflow of poisons_better known as medication_and sell them at sky-high prices, before building huge hospitals where patients pass away hygienically and anonymously, before writing the first line in the first medical dictionary, it should have all begun with basic biology: namely, taking into account that all our biological functions are necesssarily dependent on conditions that existed prior to our cooked way of life.
All our metabolic processes, the structures of our filtering organs, the reactions of our endocrine glands, not to mention our immune system with its full range of antibodies and various reactions, and even the workings of our nervous system_all that was encoded in our genetic background first and foremost due to the conditions existing in our initial natural environment.

Dietary Dogma Disproved (excerpts) by G. Kolata, in Science, 1983, vol 220, p. 487 “We have always been told that a simple sugar was a simple sugar. But, it so happens that simple sugars have been shown to be as different as potatoes and rice. The biochemistry of digestion and breakdown is so little understood that the effect of every food should be analysed on its own. What happens when we eat a particular food is far more complex than anyone could possibly have imagined. I hope, at least, that we shall someday manage to pull nutrition out of an age of utter darkness.” Note: It might be wiser to start nourishing oneself properly without waiting around any longer for that dream to come true.

o Well, when the human machine breaks down, fluctuates wildly, or wears out, rather than shatter it into an ever increasing number of spare parts to such an extent that the mind no longer has the foggiest notion as to what reality actually is, it seems to me that man could, at least once in the history of science, have tried to see how that machine operated on initial fuel!

o No. Apparently, the preposterous idea to eat like an animal never came to anyone’s mind. There’s nothing like that in the whole of the scientific archives. And yet, every child asks the question at least once in his life: Why don’t we eat food the way nature gives it to us, whereas all the animals in Creation do and always have? Why can’t we eat without cooking? What would the effect of that be on health?

_I heard that traces of cancer have been spotted on very old skeletons that date back to a period when man most certainly ate very natural food.

o There are a lot of rumors being put out on prehistoric man.
They have been depicted as unhappy brutes, crippled with rheumatism due to their damp caves, struggling to death against miserly nature in order to scrape together enough to survive on, living in absolute fear of wild animals that could only be kept at a distance by fire, armed with clubs bristling with spikes and anxious to go and plunder their neighbor’s property, dragging their wives by the hair to rape them in their dens, living barely long enough to reproduce, suffering from thousands of diseases that medicine had not yet learned how to protect them from.

_If they had had plenty to eat and had been happy, why should they have begun ploughing fields and builiding houses?

o That’s a very contentious issue you’re raising there. For a long time, it was thought that our Neolithic ancestors, about 10,000 years ago, had had to take up husbandry because they weren’t able to find everything they needed to live on in nature. The advent of a sedentary lifestyle was explained away as the need to protect oneself from the supposed dangers of all kinds associated with unbridled nature, i.e. wild cats, snakes, plundering, looting, sex crimes, and so on. Just think of drawings that are supposedly faithful representations whose purpose is to depict the mugs of those hairy creatures; they were portrayed as craven, stupid, and malicious.
That is all make-believe. Any slightly more recent book on archaeology will attest that our pre-agricultural forebears lived in plenty, that violence and war were alien to them and that they could virtually dispense with work.

_Well, now, that’s news! I have to slave away twelve hours a day to make ends meet.

o Investigating present-day tribal people who still survive on hunting and fruit-picking, like the Bushmen, for instance, evidenced that they worked a mere two hours and nine minutes daily! Most of their time is devoted to taking naps, conversing, dancing, and love-making.

o It took depicting primitive man in the deepest dye of hapless violence, in the nineteenth century, to enhance the benefits of modern society. What better way to get the masses to endorse the need for progress achieved at the cost of factory work and urban squalor. Still now, our minds are cluttered with all the stuff and nonsense we were taught at school. Cave men never did exist!

Prehistoric times Gabriel Camps, published by Perrin, (excerpts p. 276) “How did man switch from mere fruit-picking to full-blown agriculture?” Archaeologists have b

ANOPSOLOGY

ANOPSOLOGY :

Don’t mess about in the raw!

Reading this book may have contrived the delusion that instinctotherapy was an easy course to steer...

Could anything be more straightforward than eating natural food the way one pleases?

Experience has, however, shown that reinstating our dietary instincts requires being cautious and sticking to rules that can’t be rustled up overnight. The pioneers of instinctotherapy had to grope around for years before they understood the main processes regulating nutrition and brought them under control.

It should be remembered that we have schooled our body and digestive tract from a very early age on modified foods that do not allow us to experience any feeling of satiability; the flavor of a feeding bottleful of sweetened milk or of porridge barely changes while it is being drunk or eaten. That is as good as saying that we have deeply embedded in our psyche a body image bereft of any dietary instinct!

All we could go by was nausea or digestive distress, which occurred haphazardly on account of addiction. Foods that seem most potent for detoxicating the body either put us off most or the most potentially nefarious ones appeal to us. Drawing that line is the devil’s own job. Moreover, there is no knowing ad hoc whether an intervening disorder follows from misapplied instinctotherapy or the body intentionally trying for detoxification.

Experience has shown, with some thirty years’ hindsight, that it is incautious to venture out into such a stark departure from typical dietary practice without both being well-grounded and assisted. Countless snares are in store, under medical pressure, or even under the effect of subconscious forces that anchor us in our mother’s food. The foregoing are strewn all along the combat course on a thorny and hazardous road that forever threatens to doom you to failure. There should be no messing around with raw food. Being put through one’s paces can’t be done on one’s own. Trusting one’s instinct is truly great, provided it hasn’t somehow or other been stumped be it by a single factor, else you’re on the slippery slope. One, therefore, needs to know how to identify and sidestep any cause apt to jam our instincts. That calls for reasonable, practical, and theoretical training. In the early days, you need guidance, support, and advice from a seasoned practitioner in suitable surroundings. More of that in the coming pages.

ANOPSOLOGY :

Uncover your instincts !

Instead of steering a crash-course, why not have a crack at an easy exercise that will show you, for a start, that your taste buds well and truly respond to satiability. (satiability = altered perception)

Here, in a nutshell, is what you can do to get off on the right road to success.

1) Purchase favored fruit as follows:
_1 or 2 pineapples flown in ripe,
_or 2 pounds of kiwis, homegrown if possible (foreign kiwis usually being puffed up with fertilizers),
_or 2 pounds of homegrown strawberries, preferably organic,
_or 2 pounds of non_standardized white peaches,
_or 2 pounds of small fresh figs.

2) At dinner (evening meal), keep to your usual fare, but don’t go all out. Leave the table feeling slightly hungry (and don’t eat anything more that evening)

3) The next morning, instead of breakfast, put the 2 pounds of fresh fruit, you bought the previous day, on the table.

4) Then eat several properly chewed mouthfuls uninterruptedly and without eating anything else in the process.

5) See how your tastebuds react or how your stomach feels.

one of two things may occur:
_either you’ll begin to feel sated and won’t carry the experiment through,
_or else, you will find the taste of the fruit abruptly changing after a few mouthfuls, with sweet fruitiness turning unpleasant, i.e. bland, tart, bitter, acrid, pungent, astringent, and so on.

6) Carry on for a few mouthfuls and you will taste the unpleasant ingredient heightening to the point of tearing your mouth out. Make sure you don’t take things too far, otherwise your mouth may feel seared, which will preclude you eating anything else for the rest of the day.

That’s none too pleasant, but at least you will know for a fact that satiability of taste buds is a part of reality you can taste. You must bear in mind that it may happen that the fruit you choose will taste bad or even put you off at the first mouthful. That is proof positive that that particular fruit does not fulfill the needs of your body or that you are unable to digest it.

It must be remembered that applying instinctotherapy has nothing to do with this first experiment.
This experiment is intended to allow for maximal displeasure in order to explore the instinctive mechanisms. Instinctotherapy, on the contrary, insolves bringing out maximal pleasure, since pleasure signals the call of instinct and the most urgent call tallies with the food best adapted to one’s needs.

Pratical pathways

Pathways necessarily meander through detoxification phases, heralded by any number of outward signs that one will have to know how to read and properly keep under control in order to avoid things going off the rails with too much discomfort or any danger involved. Instincts, inasmuch as you can decipher their language, will stand by your side and guide you faithfully. Yet, it goes without saying that any language requires prior learning.

As a matter of fact, instinctotherapy requires more than learning. A full-blooded conversion has to take place in one’s inner attitude towards food; one has to trace back to some kind of original innocence, a deep release from guilt feelings about pleasure, a different relationship to food and other people in a general way, even an openness to subtle energies that pass through live food. Only then will the joy of eating take on its crucially vital meaning. After twenty years of work, in the course of which my research team and myself have regularly been called on to explain the principles of such a lifestyle, we have been made aware, through our failures, of the overwhelming obstacles that separate present-day man from what must have been his original state. The physiological and psychological conditions that one finds oneself in after years of daily cooking, plus thousands of years of promethean culture, makes the return route to nature long and heart-rending. There are innumerable pitfalls, no end of surprises, discouragement always nearby, and impelling forces almost irresistible.

Confidence in instincts, that have not been integrated through proper learning in early infancy, are necessarily tenuous and difficult to recover. Without that kind of confidence, it is impossible to open up to and really be in tune with one’s body and let pleasure take up its lead position again.

If I may venture a word of advice, do not embark on instinctotherapy haphazardly, lest you do yourself more harm than good; you would be wasting your time and money. Do not follow the example of numerous heedless people who believed in the method and whose failures were a smear on the reputation of instinctotherapy. Remember this principle: Instinctotherapy applied 95% does not make for 95% results. On the contrary, such application never comes up to the mark, and can spell reactions getting out of hand to the point of becoming dangerous. Dietary problems, like those of health, must be given serious consideration. You have one body only for your entire life!

Author: Guy_Claude Burger

ANOPSOLOGY

INDEX

THEORETICAL BASIS
PRACTICAL ADVICE FOR BEGINNING ANOPSOTHERAPY
INDICATORS OF METABOLIC BALANCE
APPENDICES

ANOPSOLOGY

THEORETICAL BASIS

by Guy-Claude Burger

1. A food is said to be original if it is not modified by any artifice of conceptual intelligence : an aliment as it is directly given by nature, for example as an animal can obtain it in its natural habitat.

2. The artifices by which humans transform their nourishment fall into five principal classes :

Thermal denaturing : various cooking processes, heat drying, chilling, deep freezing, irradiation, etc...
Mechanical denaturing : blending, seasoning, layering, extraction, grinding, pressing, mixing, etc...
Use of animal milk and products derived from it.
Chemistry : use of fertilizers, pesticides, additives, synthetic compounds, drugs, etc...
Artificial selection and certain agricultural and breeding techniques.

3. As we shall discuss below, humans do not seem to be genetically adapted to non-original foods. Upon a complete return to original foods, one in fact experiences the reawakening of an extremely precise alimentary instinct, which expresses itself chiefly through changes in olfactory and gustatory perceptions, or aliesthestic manifestations, located in the oral-nasal-pharyngeal region and not to be confused with the sensations of repletion or indigestion.

4. Experience thus enables us to formulate the law of the alimentary instinct : every original aliment attractive by its aroma and flavor is useful to the organism. The reciprocal is equally true : an original food which is noxious or useless is repulsive by its aroma and/or its flavor.

5. This law can be deduced directly from the principles of evolution : any animal whose instinct inclined it to consume toxic plants or to balance its diet poorly, would put itself in a position of inferiority and would be eliminated through natural selection. Therefore the alimentary instinct must have been perfected in the course of time, in the same way as any other faculty.

6. One must recognize, however, that this evolution occurred through interaction with original foods ; so it is hardly surprising that the aliesthetic mechanism is misguided by non-original foods, too recently introduced for our genetic code to have had time to adapt to them. The existence of innate programming of the alimentary instinct can be verified, for example, with newborn babies, immediately capable of selecting and apportioning their (original) foods properly.

7. All these aliesthetic manifestations may seem quite unorthodox on first sight. We can demonstrate, however, that they are part of a coherent unity (= that they have teleological significance) by the fact that they lead spontaneously to an optimum nutritional balance, characterized by the normalization of inflammatory processes (disappearance of pain) as well as by perfect regulation of body temperature, weight, vitamin and mineral levels, etc...

8. A useful food can become useless or harmful when consumed in excess of the needs of the organism ; in fact one observes that its taste suddenly changes (sometimes within a single mouthful) or that various unpleasant sensations appear. The flavor of the food may be experienced as sour, acrid, astringent, pungent, burning, bitter ; or its texture as rough, dry, sticky, etc... We refer to this change as the "sensory barrier".

9. Notice that smell and taste are unlike the other senses : they are the expressions of the alimentary instinct, as manifested by neurophysiological structures - the olfactory center and the hypothalamus. These can modulate nerve signals transmitted to the forebrain as a function of metabolic conditions. Thus the aroma and flavor of a food do not represent its objective characteristic as do its color or its consistency to the touch. (A banana smells of rubber and feels rough on the tongue when the need for it is fulfilled, while its color always remains yellow !).

10. Smell and taste do not play the same role. Smell attracts animals selectively toward inviting foods ; then taste stimulates chewing and swallowing, inhibiting the process as soon as the need has been satisfied, or when the digestive capacity is reached. Note that the aroma of a food disappears almost entirely as soon as chewing starts ; from that point smell serves only to reject a food, or certain parts of it, that may be defective, rotten, spoiled, etc... In brief :
Smell = attraction + selection
Taste = stimulation + limitation

11. The culinary art aims to make foods seem better than nature. But by virtue of the law of the alimentary instinct, a food that does not seem attractive when raw does not correspond to the needs of the organism. In rendering it more agreable, culinary devices do nothing but defeat the natural sensory barrier. In other words, cooking consists in making one eat what one must not eat.

12. Insofar as the organism clears the toxic residues and metabolic disturbances from prepared foods, the various instinctual preferences become clearer and more intense. One now discovers the original flavors of fruits, vegetables, meats, and other products of nature, which bring a degree of pleasure beyond comparison with what one feels at first. In the end, original nutrition turns out to be a form of gastronomy richer and more gratifying than the culinary variety.

13. From the anthropological viewpoint, we may consider culinary practices as the result of a sort of short circuit between intelligence and instinct, the former permitting us to alter our sensory data so as to obtain pleasure at will, but at the cost of abusing the latter. The pleasure derived through artifice, alien to the genetic programming of our nervous systems, is in fact nothing but a sensory illusion. It leads, moreover, to progressively overloading the system, diminishing little by little our level of pleasure, defeating the culinary purpose. The systemic overload renders uniquely disagreeable the original foods (with which the aliesthetic mechanism works correctly), to such an extent that the pleasure they yield can not match that of cooked foods. Cooking, then, constitutes a kind of trap into which humankind has fallen in the course of developing our conceptual intelligence.

14. The diagram below represents the original state of nature (from which it derives directly, by the same reasoning as the law of the instinct, being in fact a consequence of the laws of evolution) :

Good = Good
Bad = Bad

That is to say, everything that is good to the palate is good for the body, and everything bad for the body is bad to the palate. The result is a state of harmony, in which it is enough to let oneself follow natural inclinations ; this is the law of pleasure.

In the presence of culinary artifice, one finds oneself on the first diagonal : one can render good to the palate what is bad for the body. Henceforth it is necessary to beware of pleasure, to resist temptation. In addition, the intoxination of the organism and the overloads resulting from defeating the sensory barrier have the effect that original foods taste bad or provoke nausea, so that one finds oneself on the second diagonal. The preceding diagram is completely reversed :

Good = Bad
Bad = Good

That is to say, the expression of the alimlentary instinct conflicts with our needs, pleasure leads to errors, it is necessary to establish rules and to intervene by will power to limit the damage. Exactly this is what happens on the one hand with the disorders due to conventional eating (obesity, cardiovascular disease, etc...) and on the other, with the emphasis placed on dietetics, the search for daily menus, dietary regimes, etc...

15. The law of the alimentary instinct also permits a precise definition of the notion of gluttony. First, notice that with original foods gluttony does not exist : because it is not possible to have both pleasure and harmfulness at the same time (if a food is appealing, it is useful, and if not useful, it is displeasing). Therefore it is necessary to intervene by artifice in order to elude the law of the instinct : in fact, a prepared food can seem good even though it is useless to the body. Gluttony, then, is defined as the quest for pleasure in the absence of need - implying, as a corollary, resorting to culinary artifice. From a philosophical point of view, note that gluttony thus defined (= pleasure = harmfulness) does not exist in the original state of nature. Peculiar to Homo sapiens and to conceptual intelligence, it leads to overloading, dependency, and pathologies, accounting for its classification as one of the seven deadly sins.

16. A single denatured food introduced into the original menu is enough to produce an overload (since the instinct fails to regulate its consumption). Moreover, in its presence the other foods (with which, being original, the instinct functions) lose their normal flavor (one has the sense of being "sucked in" by the denatured food). The general level of pleasure is noticeably reduced, leaving a sense of frustration. One is then tempted to reestablish a satisfactory level of pleasure by seeking further culinary artifices. This may explain the development of the culinary arts of the first, possibly even accidental, cooking - an evolution that was statistically inevitable following the mastery of fire. It is equally clear that original eating does not yield the pleasure necessary to prevent a sense of frustration unless it is practiced 100 percent, and that any exception is reflected in an increase in the level of "temptation" posed by the culinary environment.

17. Taking account of the alimentary instinct suggests a particularly simple and efficient way of approaching the problem of dietetics. Instead of assessing the needs of the organism from the outside (with all the risks of diagnosis in the face of the extraordinary complexity of nutritional processes and their inevitable fluctuations over time), it is enough to comply with the olfactory and gustatory pleasures, expressions of an instinct which is directly in touch with the body's actual needs and which can track unforeseeable and sometimes surprising variations in quantity. Note that Anopsotherapy is not a "diet" ; it implies no obligation nor any prohibition against nature. It tends to eliminate the artifices that are likely to defeat the aliesthetic mechanism (or to pose problems not manageable by metabolic processes). For the artificial scheme of diagnosis - prescription it substitutes the natural process of probing - acquiescence.

18. It is shown by the foregoing that the instinctual apparatus is manifestly not adapted to prepared foods : one must then wonder what is their effect on the rest of the nutritional apparatus. Through the working of natural selection, each species adapts to the conditions of its habitat. Such adaptation, however, takes many generations ; the genetic code changes very slowly over time (less than 1 % in the six million years since our forebears diverged from the chimpanzees). The practice of cooking dates, roughly speaking, from just ten thousand years ago - quite recent in relation to the biological time scale. Yet each new alimentary challenge introduced by intelligent artifice may pose a new metabolic problem and entail pathological consequences. For any culinary artifice, there is a reason to ask :

whether a genetic adaptation has been or would habe been necessary
whether such adaptation is possible
whether it has had time to occur

This issue, apparently ignored by medical research, is quite critical, being at the very heart of the world health problem. The prognosis in any illness depends inevitably on nutrition. Therefore the illness depends on nutrition (even if one is ignorant of its mechanisms). It is needful, then, to pose the problem of adaptation before plunging blindly into a quest for therapeutics that risk missing the point, that in fact remain unavailing in the face of various diseases. Three quarters of the population die of neoplastic or cardiovascular diseases, which are not necessarily preordained by nature.

19. Non-original foods introduce molecules into the organism to which the enzymes, programmed by the genetic code, have no reason to be adapted. These "non-original molecules" may be created in chemical reactions induced by cooking, or may come from foods not in the original alimentary spectrum of humans (such as animal milk). It will be impossible for some of these to be metabolized normally ; instead, blocked at some stage of transformation, they will accumulate in the organism, provoking a gradual culinary intoxination. They will be found in the circulating fluids (blood, lymph) or stored within the cells or in the interstitial spaces (amylose), in fatty deposits, or even integrated into cell and tissue structures (membranes, collagen, joints, dentin, etc...)

20. Contemporary studies of metabolism have not yet given much consideration to these abnormal molecules, whose transformations constitute an anomolous, or "paradoxical" metabolism (= processes not provided for by the genetic code, which we call "parabolism"). Some of these substances could provoke all kinds of disorders (as many disorders as there are classes of substances and functions in the organism). In other words, the culinary intoxination will give rise to a "molecular pathology" which could constitute the cause in whole or in part of numerous illnesses.

21. The notion of intoxication as conceived by medical science refers either to chemical substances or to alimentary intoxication due to accidental contamination, fermentation, surfeit, or any intolerance ; and in pathological cases, to an excess of the waste products of normal metabolism. Fringe medicine gives more weight to the alimentary factor than does conventional thinking, but at present neither seems to have distinguishe clearly between original toxins and non-original toxins.

In fact, certain molecules present in original foods are toxic, as are certain by-products of metabolism : these substances, however, have existed all the time, so that the programming of our genetic code provides for their elimination through normal channels (= detoxication). The same cannot be said of molecules that deviate from this programming, which must be eliminated by various unexpected mechanisms (deviant channels) and over much longer periods of time. Here we shall speak of non-original toxins from culinary origins, and of detoxination.

22. Because very small quantities of noxious susbtances can be enough to provoke serious disorders (20 millionths of a gram in the case of the botulism toxin), it is not necessarily easy to detect these non-original toxins ; they may be involved in all vital processes, whose complexity is well known. In the face of the unenlightenment that reigns in this area, it has been possible to compensate for the lack of analytical techniques by resorting to the sense of smell. Indeed, experience shows that any substance leaving the organism and giving off an abnormal odor derives from a pathological process. This is so with many substances of culinary origin whose characteristic odors one recognizes, at the end of certain periods of detoxination, in the perspiration, the urine, the feces, the breath, the skin oils, the earwax, etc.., enabling us at such times to explain correctly the discomforts that may be associated with these mechanisms of elimination (coincidence of signs and odors).

23. The whole of medicine has been built up without taking account of the presence in the organism of noxious substances of culinary origin. So there is good reason to reconsider all the usual classifications of disease in light of this postulate, which offers a precise cause of impairment of the "terrain".

In accordance with the principle of homeostastis (= the tendency of the organism spontaneously to reestablish its equilibrium and its integrity), one can expect to find certain detoxination processes designed to eliminate at least some of these non-original toxins. Now accompanying such processes will be various signs that medicine - unaware of this molecular pathology - takes for so many morbid symptoms. So one must expect to find among the catalog of diseases a certain number of "useful disorders" - detoxination processes (or "orthopathies) designed to restore health. Such misunderstanding may have serious consequences, because the therapies that are supposed to cure these "diseases" will in reality accomplish nothing but to interrupt the organism's needful processes, and to maintain it in a state of intoxination that will grow worse over time and open the door to true illnesses and premature aging. In order to determine which diseases can be classified among these orthopathies, one may apply the following criteria :

24.

Positive results : after recovery, a "useful disorder" must leave an improvement of the terrain, which shows itself, for example, as a lessening of the symptoms of true illness.
Program : a process programmed by the organism must take place in a sequence that one finds repeated in other individuals
Spontaneous convergence : such a process must evolved spontaneously toward healing, insofar as it is not thwarted by unforeseen factors such as non original nutrition
ischarge of substances : the elimination of substances is observed in the form of catarrhs, diarrheas, concentrated urine, sweating, bleeding, discharge of pus, abnormal odors, etc...
Proportionality : the detoxination process will be just so much longer, more intense, or more frequent in relation to the severity of intoxination, provided the organism has not reached a "tolerance" state as a result of excessive intoxination (cf. #31)
Transmissibility : it is useful to the species that a program of detoxination worked out in an individual can be transmitted to others, in such a way that certain useful disorders can be "contagious".
Intensification : a program designed to eliminate one class of toxins will have a tendency to intensify whenever a certain quantity of th esame toxins are reintroduced into the bloodstream (for example, after a dietary "exception")
Curability : such a process can be interrupted with comparative ease by various interventions likely to disturb the organism in its functioning, interruptions that will be taken for so many "cures".

25. Experience seems to show that most illnesses considered as infectious satisfy the preceding criteria, provided that alimentation strictly respects the norms defined by Anopsotherapy. One must therefore call into question the classical conception of the virus and the bacterium, which may no longer be considered as necessarily pathogenic agents. A virus in fact introduces into the cell a fragment of DNA or RNA which, by microscopic observation, seems to intervene as a sort of complementary program which augments the genetic code and which permits the elimination of various classes of toxins not originally foreseen ; to speak more precisely, non-original molecules. The bacterium, likewise, seems to be used by the organism (which perfectly regulates its multiplication under Anopsotherapeutic conditions) so as to provide, through a "third party", enzymes that can decompose non-original molecules or their undesirable by-products beyond the capabilities of its own enzymes (ones adapted, a priori, to original molecules).

26. Therefore, instead of battling against microbes by the use of antibiotics, vaccines, asepsis, etc..., the role of medicine will be rather to see that the organism succeeds in regulating in a satisfactory way the detoxination processes with which they are associated - perhaps even to seek means of instigating such processes so as to reestablish th integrity of the terrain and prevent true illness. In the present state of affairs, the apparent therapeutic successes obtained in infectious illnesses may be the cause of the rising mortality due to cancer and cardiovascular diseases, through an endemic increase in the incidence of toxemia.

27. There are good reasons to reconsider especially the medical interpretation of three phenomena whose meaning cannot be seen apart from our postulate that foreign substances are present in the organism :
Catarrhs of the mucus membranes which permit the discharge of matter in the form of abnormally thick mucus ; the normal channels of secretion serving, under exceptional conditions, for excretion of undesirable substances.
Eruptions of all sorts, acting as safety valves to permit the passage of toxins that cannot be eliminated through other channels.
Inflammation, one of whose effects is to allow the white corpuscules to pass through the dilated capillary walls and perform their work of cleaning in the tissues.These processes must be respected, to the extent that they do not exceed the limit of the "tolerable", a criterion that seems always to be observed under Anopsotherapeutic conditions.

28. The toxins present in circulating fluids in excess of certain critical concentrations, may disturb various functions (even ones unrelated to the detoxination processes of the moment), notably digestion, assimilation, intestinal an renal elimination, blood circulation, body temperature regulation ; functions of the liver, gall bladder, pancreas ; growth of hair and nails, sebacious secretions, activity of the endocrine system as well as the whole of the nervous system. Such disturbances or functional diseases disappear relatively fast upon ceasing the introduction of culinary toxins; they are easily reversible. They reappear, however, at any time when the degree of toxemia again exceeds a critical threshold, as a result of either a new alimentary intoxination (exceptions !), or of a detoxination that releases previously accumulated toxins into circulation. The return of former symptoms of this kind therefore permits diagnosis of a detoxination process unless there has been some faulty food on the table.

29. Beyond certain thresholds, the accumulation of toxins may result in the degeneration of various structures : cellular vacuoles overwhelm the whole cell and inhibit its vital processes, calculi are deposited from overconcentrated substances in body fluids, tissues exhibit fatty or calcareous infiltrations, the dentin may take on a darker color due to material carried in by the blood and infused from the roots, the joints become abnormal, collagen is infiltrated by cross-linked proteins that impair the suppleness of the tissues, etc... To these disturbances, much less reversible than those mentioned previously, are added all the degenerative effects of auto-immune illnesses.

30. To identify and destroy foreign cells and molecules, the organism deploys a sort of police system, called the immune system, whose principal agents are the white corpuscules (some of which are capable of making antibodies) and certain proteins, the "complement", specializing in refuse collection. Indispensible for maintaining the organism's integrity, this system too is genetically adapted to the foreign substances that the original environment may have presented. So it is not necessarily capable of reacting correctly in the face of non-original molecules, some of which may accumulate unchallenged, nor against cancer cells unforeseen by its programming (for example, cells which have become malignant as a result of penetration by non-original molecules into their nuclei).

31. When the immune system is called upon too often by foreign molecules, it goes on strike : in such a state of immunological tolerance, the organism permits itself to be invaded by molecules of a sort that profoundly compromise the terrain, penetrating into the cells and settling in the membranes, etc... Should a random cancerous cell appear, with its membrane composed of these molecules that should be recognized by the immune system, they may by chance be taken for a tolerated class of molecules, so that the cell will not be recognized nor destroyed and may give rise to a tumor. To reverse this process, the immune system must cease its toleration ; most notably it is necessary to put an end to the influx of foreign molecules from alimentary sources. Then, however, other body cells marked by these same molecules, will equally be recognized as foreign and destroyed ; hence a rapid loss of weight.

32. Certain viruses seem to be responsible for programming the breakdown and replacement of cells that make up various organs particularly subject to damage (myelin sheaths, joint structures, kidneys, etc...). When these cells are invaded by foreign molecules, the immune system, being in charge of rejection, may speed up its work to such a degree that the healing process, normally sufficient to replace cells as fast as they are thrown off, cannot keep up the pace, especially if the viral activity is aggravated by an additional influx of foreign molecules from alimentary sources. What follows is an apparent self-destruction, which may stabilize upon the resumption of original alimentation, giving way to a gradual healing. This is clearly seen with the so-called "auto-immune" diseases such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus erythematosis, etc...

33. This same theory (called crossed tolerances) equally well explains allergies : when the tissues have allowed the accumulation of molecules foreign to original alimentation, a seemingly minor factor (a grain of pollen, dust particle, medicine, etc...) is enough to provoke a more or less widespread cessation of tolerance, which expresses itself by a disproportionate inflammation. We thus understand how the detoxination accompanying original alimentation can cure the most diverse allergies (the allergy to pollens of gramineous plants disappears upon putting an end to the toxins brought in by the previous consumption of baked grain in the form of bread, pastries, ect...).

34. Some abnormal molecules present in the blood can impair the functioning of the neurons and synapses, either by inhibiting them or by increasing their excitability. Nervous stimuli, when amplified abnormally, may engender states of auto-excitation or "contention", altering the psychic equilibrium in all its aspects and in all degrees according to the case, from a simple obsessive tendency on up to schizophrenia : with Anopsotherapy a gradual reduction is indeed observed in the level of anxiety, of stress, of aggressiveness, along with the disappearance of insomnia, agitated dreams, nervous tics, etc... The sexual instinct in particular, when endogenous excitation no longer interferes with it, tends spontaneously to resume its original function, and seems to restore what the Ancients called sacred eroticism. This leads us to reconsider the whole of psychoanalysis (theory of metasexuality).

35. Health will no longer be defined by the absence of illnesses, but on the contrary by the capacity of the organism to react against foreign matter, that is to say by the presence of "useful disorders", for as long as detoxination continues. Thanks to instinctual regulation of food intake, the signs observable from outside generally remain minimal (silence of the organs !) or at least without severity. Under traditional alimentary conditions, the inflammatory tendency produces the usual symptoms, so that the absence of visible disturbances gives evidence of a relative absence of reactivity (immunological tolerance) and therefore of poor health. In sum, the absence of symptoms will be a sign either of the absence of intoxination or of the absence of detoxination. Health will be the capacity of the organism to maintain or reestablish its integrity (= normal genetic code + normal molecular structures).

36. Experience shows that detoxination is achieved at a speed which is of the same order as intoxination occurs, through successive phases corresponding to the cessations of specific tolerances induced by different types of toxins, the most intense ones usually coming at the start (thus the need of good supervision). The improvement of one's general state and the healing of diseases starts as soon as the rate of intoxination falls below the critical threshold, all the faster if the disease is more recent in origin. Thus true illnesses heal comparatively fast, whereas useful disorders and maladies make their appearance (in an embryonic form if the alimentary balance is correct) until the foreign substances are completely eliminated.

37. It is difficult to estimate what the original life expectancy of humans should be, in view of the universality of culinary practices. Certainly intoxination is responsible for a pathological aging which is superposed upon genetically programmed aging. The immune system attacks cells that are too intoxinated, producing a risk of microinflammations that further aggravate the inflammatory tendency already exaggerated by the imbalances and toxins of prepared food. Thus the organs grow riddled with "holes" that are filled by the non-specialized cells of scar tissue, leaving ever heavier demands upon the functioning cells ; hence an accelerated evolution toward kidney, liver, cardiovascular, or cerebral insufficiency, etc... (auto-immune theory of aging). Upon putting a stop to culinary intoxination, the reduction in the inflammatory tendency checks this process, some functional cells gradually replace the scare tissue (at least in part), whence follows a rejuvenation that is, for example, observed in elderly people who have practiced Anopsotherapy for a sufficient time.

38. A loss of weight (reserves, decomposed cells, deshydratation) may indicate either the elimination of foreign matter or the loss of useful matter. The transition to Anopsotherapy is generally accompanied by an initial loss of weight, due in part to a reduction in the water retention caused by cooking salt (about one kilogram) and to the release of unwanted substances accumulated as a result of the tolerances induced by the intake of maladapted molecules. Such a loss of weight as "intended" by the organism must not be confused with a pathological weight loss caused by malnutrition, by a metabolic disorder, or by an auto-immune process that escapes form genetic control. Paradoxically, detoxination may sometimes be accompanied by putting on weight, either because the elimination of toxins is brought to a halt, for example by the presence of foreign substances excessively concentrated in the intestines (exceptions, constipation, or too rapid cellular detoxination), or because the toxins on the way to elimination are too dangerous to the rest of the organism (particularly the nervous system), in which case they may be stored in adipose masses. It may therefore be inadvisable to force the loss of weight through violent means (saunas, massages, excessive exertion). After the initial loss of weight will follow a rebuilding of the musculature and a stabilization of normal weight (youthful figure).

39. Various factors can stimulate detoxination and lead to appearance of the corresponding symptoms : chilling accelerates body heat generation and mobilizes the stored substances (hence mucous catarrh) ; prolonged warming accelerates exchanges and provokes the release of certain toxins ; over-exertion, shocks, prolonged rest, and lack of sleep likewise ; consuming a new food, just like acting to exceed the sensory barrier with a food particularly well-suited to the needs of the organism, may set off a rejection by the cells of undesirable substances previously stored, which will be replaced by the suitable molecules supplied by the blood (law of exchange) ; exposure to sunshine may produce an inflammation of the skin and a release of the toxins accumulated in the subcutaneous fats (after a sufficient period of original alimentation, direct sunshine no longer causes burns or classical blisters). In any of these cases, a surge of detoxination reveals itself through mild discomforts (sweating, nausea, thirst, etc...) and may entail a cessation of tolerance, recognizable by a lasting change in the alimentary spectrum (tastes and distastes) as well as by the odor of the matter eliminated (feces, urine, breath, skin, ect...)

40. An alimentary substance cannot be assimilated unless all the substances necessary for its metabolism are present in the organism (law of the minimum). A vegetable protein, for instance, cannot replace an animal protein, because it does not contain enough lysine, which is one of the eight essential amino acids. Observation of the aliesthetic mechanisms seems, in fact, to confirm the impossibility of total vegetarianism ; it may even be necessary to resort to sufficiently varied protein sources (eggs, shellfish, various kind of meat and fish), at least when seeking a therapeutic optimum. Likewise it seems that not only amino acids are in question, and that the problem of complementarity is much more complex than today's dietetics has led us to believe. Note that with cooking this problem is far less evident, the alimentary molecules being partially decomposed by thermal agitation, enabling them to "skip" some steps in metabolism. So it is important to vary the choices available as much as possible.

41. After a period of strict Anopsotherapy, the act of bringing the oral mucosa into contact whith a non-original food (by chewing for a few secondes) or of consuming a certain quantity can touch off a cessation of tolerance by sensitizing the immune system from the outside. Following such provocations one may indeed observe rather significant reactions (aches, fevers, particulars odors, etc...) which may be salutary in the case of neoplastic diseases, for example.

On the day before, empty your cupboards ; diseard old provisions, boxes of sweets, canned foods, and the like.

Now give up your old way of eating and jump all at once into "original nutrition", without any transition period. (Gradual transitions fail because of imbalances, lack of pleasure in eating, or too-sudden detoxination).

Be very careful of the quality of the foods you buy : just one denatured food (such as unnatural meat or eggs) can, even indirectly, endanger the whole undertaking.

Prepare yourself to resist "temptations", because every exception you make tends to increase your initial sense of frustration (overeating + metabolic perturbation = reduced pleasure), and can rush detoxination.

Whenever the body reacts intensely, don't continue eating any food beyond the "luminous" stage as indicated by its taste. Respect the sensory barrier and don't force yourself. Make sure you have a sufficient choice of vegetables (parsley, cabbage, potatoes have an anti- inflammatory effect). Be moderate with sweet fruits, honey, dried fruits, etc... Beware of commercial products that may have been denatured by heat.

Don't forget to test yourself with a bit of casse, if available, once a day (or any time you need to slow down your body's detoxination reaction). The best time is in the evening before bed ; but always take the casse between meals, not with other food. In case of diarrhea, test some carob during meals.

In starting this new regime, remember that any adaptation takes time. Before forming your final opinion, allow yourself at least three weeks - preferably including a short stay in a Anopsological training center, with monitoring by a practitioner knowledgeable about Anopsotherapy).

Make sure you have a sufficient range of foods chosen in accordance with the principles of Anopsology. Your choice should be all the wider insofar as therapeutic needs are important. Caution : Meats, eggs, nuts, seeds, certain dried fruits, olives, honey and bee pollen are almost always denatured as sold commercially.

Have just two meals a day, around noon and 6 pm. Lunch should include two sequences : one with fresh fruits and another with nuts and oil-bearing seeds. Dinner may have four or five sequences : (1) animal proteins, (2) vegetables ans sprouted cereals, (3) fresh fruits if desired, (4) nuts and oil-bearing seeds, and finally (5) dried fruits and honey.

During the first sequence at each meal, smell each food in turn. If it's hard to discern the fragrance of a food, try scarping its surface or notching it with your knife ; or breathe on it to warm it. You may taste a bit without swallowing. Repeat this sampling with the more attractive of the foods until one of them stands out as the most pleasant and attractive to you.

Eat this selected food until reaching the sensory barrier. Stop when the taste changes, in order to avoid or minimize any detoxination reaction. This first stage is called the "luminous" or pleasant phase. You may continue slightly beyond the pleasant phase - into the painful or unpleasant stage - in order to provoke a detoxination reaction. A sickened sensation usually warns that the body can't tolerate eating any more of this food (cessation of tolerance), and eating to this point should be avoided in the case of autoimmune diseases.

Choose a second food in the same way, again eating it until reaching the sensory barrier ; and possibly a third one. (With animal protein it's best to limit yourself to a single food). Then go on to the second sequence, and continue in this fashion. Stop eating as soon as a feeling of repletion appears : a sense of fullness or warmth. An excess of food would only overload the digestion and result in metabolic imbalance.

If nothing in a particular sequence tastes good to you, go right on to the next one. Honey, for example, need not be eaten every day. In case no food in any of the sequences tastes good, simply fast until the next meals ; it's sometimes beneficial and healthful to give your digestive tract a rest. Should you find that nothing tastes good for a period of several days, don't worry yourself needlessly. Most likely your body is calling for prolonged rest, in the form of an "instinctual fast". Don't forget your water and your casse, if available. Wait until an olfactory attraction signals when, and with wich food, to break the fast.

If nothing tastes particularly good, and you experience a resulting feeling of frustration (it will be an organic, not a psychological, frustration), try to determine whether some needed food may be missing among your available choices. Be suspicious of any preconceived ideas about particular foodstuffs (e.g. meat, exotic fruits, etc...). Also make sure that no denatured food has been inadvertently included on the table.

Never take a new food to your mouth too quickly just after the previous one, in order to avoid superposing the flavors. Likewise don't contaminate one food with the juice from another (don't forget to wipe your knife). Don't rush yourself in chewing ; continue until the natural swallowing reflex appears. But don't chew longer than necessary, either.

Eat nothing between meals ; this only makes digestion more difficult and opens the door to bulimia (compulsive eating). Skip the breakfast meal, so as not to interrupt the body's nightly detoxination, which thus may continue until lunchtime. Feeling empty in the stomach is only a sign of intense detoxination, and must not be confused with genuine hunger, recognizable by experiencing attractive smells.

Hunger should be distinguished from thirst, not confused with it. Try drinking some water anytime you feel dissatisfaction between meals. Keep several kinds of water at hand and each time choose what tastes best, then drink until reaching the sensory barrier. Do not drink tap water.

Wash foods only as necessary, using non-chlorinated water on any thin or fragile parts. Never soak your dried fruits in water.

Never eat at random, nor according to your mental image or recollection of a food. Only the senses of smell and taste (aliesthetic manifestations) can indicate exactly what is needed at a given time, the correct quantity (sometimes tiny, sometimes enormous), the unsuitable combinations, etc...

Casse is essential because it eases the process of detoxination and exerts a regulatory effect on the system. It acts in two ways, first stimulating intestinal elimination (thus faciliting the elimination of blood toxins in the feces) ; and also enhancing cellular elimination by directly increasing the permeability of cell membranes. If good overall elimination is desired while limiting intestinal discharge at the same time, instead of cutting back the quantity of casse, test some carob with your meals (in the nuts and seeds sequence).

It is necessary to distinguish the upkeep, or "maintenance", ration from the "elimination" ration. The former represents the energy supply and the necessary material to maintain the body's status quo ; for maintenance the calorie requirement is less than in ordinary eating thanks to better metabolic efficiency. The latter, by contrast, represents seemingly enormous quantities whose effect is to provoke the breakdown of toxic substance that have been accumulated in the cells (instinctual bulimia). Detoxination is then stimulated (and paradoxically, weight loss as well) by eating a lot ; whereas in ordinary eating it is just the other way round.

Fruits have been cultivated to be eaten raw while vegetables have been bred for cooking. Consequently fruits tend to be comparatively too delicious, while vegetables are too strongly flavored in their "original" or natural state. Both may distort the working of the instinct. To correct for this effect, eat a maximum of vegetables (even to the unpleasant stage) and a minimum of fruit (always stop in the pleasant stage).

ANOPSOLOGY

PRACTICAL ADVICE FOR BEGINNING ANOPSOTHERAPY

So as to succeed in beginning Anopsotherapy, here are some suggestions :

Prepare yourself psychologically for Anospology and be fully aware of the fundamental problem of our genetic maladaptation to conventional diet.
Also prepare those with whom you live, perhaps by explaining that your experiment may be for a limited time. Take care not to imply that your family should feel guilty about their own ways of eating.
Choose in advance the one day on which you will make the "quantum leap".
On the day before, empty your cupboards ; diseard old provisions, boxes of sweets, canned foods, and the like.
Now give up your old way of eating and jump all at once into "original nutrition", without any transition period. (Gradual transitions fail because of imbalances, lack of pleasure in eating, or too-sudden detoxination).
Be very careful of the quality of the foods you buy : just one denatured food (such as unnatural meat or eggs) can, even indirectly, endanger the whole undertaking.
Prepare yourself to resist "temptations", because every exception you make tends to increase your initial sense of frustration (overeating + metabolic perturbation = reduced pleasure), and can rush detoxination.
Whenever the body reacts intensely, don't continue eating any food beyond the "luminous" stage as indicated by its taste. Respect the sensory barrier and don't force yourself. Make sure you have a sufficient choice of vegetables (parsley, cabbage, potatoes have an anti- inflammatory effect). Be moderate with sweet fruits, honey, dried fruits, etc... Beware of commercial products that may have been denatured by heat.
Don't forget to test yourself with a bit of casse, if available, once a day (or any time you need to slow down your body's detoxination reaction). The best time is in the evening before bed ; but always take the casse between meals, not with other food. In case of diarrhea, test some carob during meals.
In starting this new regime, remember that any adaptation takes time. Before forming your final opinion, allow yourself at least three weeks - preferably including a short stay in a Anopsological training center, with monitoring by a practitioner knowledgeable about Anopsotherapy).
Make sure you have a sufficient range of foods chosen in accordance with the principles of Anopsology. Your choice should be all the wider insofar as therapeutic needs are important. Caution : Meats, eggs, nuts, seeds, certain dried fruits, olives, honey and bee pollen are almost always denatured as sold commercially.
Have just two meals a day, around noon and 6 pm. Lunch should include two sequences : one with fresh fruits and another with nuts and oil-bearing seeds. Dinner may have four or five sequences : (1) animal proteins, (2) vegetables ans sprouted cereals, (3) fresh fruits if desired, (4) nuts and oil-bearing seeds, and finally (5) dried fruits and honey.
During the first sequence at each meal, smell each food in turn. If it's hard to discern the fragrance of a food, try scarping its surface or notching it with your knife ; or breathe on it to warm it. You may taste a bit without swallowing. Repeat this sampling with the more attractive of the foods until one of them stands out as the most pleasant and attractive to you.
Eat this selected food until reaching the sensory barrier. Stop when the taste changes, in order to avoid or minimize any detoxination reaction. This first stage is called the "luminous" or pleasant phase. You may continue slightly beyond the pleasant phase - into the painful or unpleasant stage - in order to provoke a detoxination reaction. A sickened sensation usually warns that the body can't tolerate eating any more of this food (cessation of tolerance), and eating to this point should be avoided in the case of autoimmune diseases.
Choose a second food in the same way, again eating it until reaching the sensory barrier ; and possibly a third one. (With animal protein it's best to limit yourself to a single food). Then go on to the second sequence, and continue in this fashion. Stop eating as soon as a feeling of repletion appears : a sense of fullness or warmth. An excess of food would only overload the digestion and result in metabolic imbalance.
If nothing in a particular sequence tastes good to you, go right on to the next one. Honey, for example, need not be eaten every day. In case no food in any of the sequences tastes good, simply fast until the next meals ; it's sometimes beneficial and healthful to give your digestive tract a rest. Should you find that nothing tastes good for a period of several days, don't worry yourself needlessly. Most likely your body is calling for prolonged rest, in the form of an "instinctual fast". Don't forget your water and your casse, if available. Wait until an olfactory attraction signals when, and with wich food, to break the fast.
If nothing tastes particularly good, and you experience a resulting feeling of frustration (it will be an organic, not a psychological, frustration), try to determine whether some needed food may be missing among your available choices. Be suspicious of any preconceived ideas about particular foodstuffs (e.g. meat, exotic fruits, etc...). Also make sure that no denatured food has been inadvertently included on the table.
Never take a new food to your mouth too quickly just after the previous one, in order to avoid superposing the flavors. Likewise don't contaminate one food with the juice from another (don't forget to wipe your knife). Don't rush yourself in chewing ; continue until the natural swallowing reflex appears. But don't chew longer than necessary, either.
Eat nothing between meals ; this only makes digestion more difficult and opens the door to bulimia (compulsive eating). Skip the breakfast meal, so as not to interrupt the body's nightly detoxination, which thus may continue until lunchtime. Feeling empty in the stomach is only a sign of intense detoxination, and must not be confused with genuine hunger, recognizable by experiencing attractive smells.
Hunger should be distinguished from thirst, not confused with it. Try drinking some water anytime you feel dissatisfaction between meals. Keep several kinds of water at hand and each time choose what tastes best, then drink until reaching the sensory barrier. Do not drink tap water.
Wash foods only as necessary, using non-chlorinated water on any thin or fragile parts. Never soak your dried fruits in water.
Never eat at random, nor according to your mental image or recollection of a food. Only the senses of smell and taste (aliesthetic manifestations) can indicate exactly what is needed at a given time, the correct quantity (sometimes tiny, sometimes enormous), the unsuitable combinations, etc...
Casse is essential because it eases the process of detoxination and exerts a regulatory effect on the system. It acts in two ways, first stimulating intestinal elimination (thus faciliting the elimination of blood toxins in the feces) ; and also enhancing cellular elimination by directly increasing the permeability of cell membranes. If good overall elimination is desired while limiting intestinal discharge at the same time, instead of cutting back the quantity of casse, test some carob with your meals (in the nuts and seeds sequence).
It is necessary to distinguish the upkeep, or "maintenance", ration from the "elimination" ration. The former represents the energy supply and the necessary material to maintain the body's status quo ; for maintenance the calorie requirement is less than in ordinary eating thanks to better metabolic efficiency. The latter, by contrast, represents seemingly enormous quantities whose effect is to provoke the breakdown of toxic substance that have been accumulated in the cells (instinctual bulimia). Detoxination is then stimulated (and paradoxically, weight loss as well) by eating a lot ; whereas in ordinary eating it is just the other way round.
Fruits have been cultivated to be eaten raw while vegetables have been bred for cooking. Consequently fruits tend to be comparatively too delicious, while vegetables are too strongly flavored in their "original" or natural state. Both may distort the working of the instinct. To correct for this effect, eat a maximum of vegetables (even to the unpleasant stage) and a minimum of fruit (always stop in the pleasant stage).

ANOPSOLOGY

INDICATORS OF METABOLIC BALANCE

A way of eating that is adapted to the genetic heritage of the human body will have a favorable effect on every organ and all its functions. More or less rapid change will actually be noticed in various aspects of health, particularly :

_General well-being, even-temperedness, relaxed frame of mind.
_Any digestive disorders relieved, disappearance of hunger pangs, of feelings of nausea, heaviness, burps, acidness, coated tongue, etc...
_No perspiration, exudation, seborrhea, greasy hair, etc...
_Minimal body odors (breath, armpits, feet, genitals, feces, etc...)
_Easy movements (one to two a day, well-formed and that rarely require toilet paper)
_No trouble falling asleep, deep asleep, refreshed awakening
_Intense enjoyment of meals, no feelings of frustration
_Moderate thirst, water tastes pleasant, mouth moist, and no after-taste lingering between meals
_Hands and feet no longer clammy
_No chilliness, especially in the hands or feet
_Improved skin condition, less corns, chillblains, callouses, unsightly hairs, horny growths, wrinkles, acne, etc...
_Excess fat melted off one’s frame and muscles appear well-defined
_Alleviation of hemorrhage and bruises. Hemorroids and varicose veins disappear
_Slower heart beat, blood pressure and blood cholesterol are back to normal
_Better able to withstand long, drawn-out exertion, tendency to be less out of breath, and better able to hold one’s breath.
_Sexual dysfunction allayed and normal menstruation
_Recovery from inflammation of any kind, disappearance of migraine, quinsy, toothache, sinus trouble, sunstrokes, and so on.
_Improved immunity against infection (no need for disinfectants and antibiotics). In the event of injuries, cuts, fractures, and so on, there is no pain or swelling; healing is quick and normal.
_Resistance to parasites or speedy voiding of them (ascaris, pinworms, ringworms, amoebas, toxoplasmosis, malaria, and so on)
_In the event of flu or any other viral illness, virtual absence of typical symptoms (mild or dubbed form).
_Allergies, hay fever, nettle rash, eczema, asthma, and so on yield.
_Improvement or unaided recovery from a number of diseases including neoplasms, allergies, and auto-immune diseases.
_Subsidence of nervousness, stress, anxiety, irritability, shyness, butterflies in one’s stomach, dizziness, nightmares, cramps, and so on.
_Improved concentration, mental speed, memory, reflexes, intuition, and creativity.

N.B.: Practicing instinctotherapy is compatible with most courses of medical treatment. There is no need to shelve ongoing treatment before changing one’s diet. Diet should be changed first and only subsequently should treatment be discontinued once it has become redundant, subject to the family doctor’s approval.

A NEW THEORETICAL MODEL OF VIRAL PHENOMENA

Introduction

Louis Pasteur was the first to use the term "virus" to describe the pathogenic effect of bacteria that he had discovered under a microscope. At the beginning of the century, lens with an increasingly high resolution, together with high-powered centrifugation, x-ray diffraction, and electrophoresis helped prove the existence of minute particles infective and indefinitely reproductible, though bereft of independent vitality.

More recently, the advent of molecular biology and electronic microscopes has made it possible to specify and visualize accurately the structures of very many viruses, as well as how they spread and behave on the molecular level. This has lifted the veil of mystery those infinitesimal beings were so long shrouded in, in the causation of so many aliments and diseases, and even unbearable tragedies of yore like smallpox and poliomyelitis, and, in this day and age, AIDS.

This knowledge affords us the hope of finding the right strategies, whether they be