Correction To: Fermented Foods & Health [Ann Wigmore]

[Guest guest]

That's not fermented, Erica, that's rotted! Proteins rot (decompose),

carbohydrates ferment.

 

Elchanan

_____

 

Erica

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:27 AM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Re: Correction Fermented Foods & Health [Ann

Wigmore]

 

 

Erica,

>

>

>

> What fermented foods do wild animals eat and under what

circumstances? Just

> curious.

> Thanks,

> Janet

 

For starters, haven't you ever seen dogs bury raw meat and dig it up later?

I have, many times. Eskimos make " high meat " or eat fermented stomach

contents, too (but they are human).....

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Erica,

 

No, I haven't witnessed this with my dogs, but that doesn't mean dogs

don't do it. You are saying that dogs ferment meat? It seems to me

they are burying it so they can retrieve it later. Their stomachs can

take rotting flesh, but is this the same as fermenting?

 

Janet

 

rawfood , " Erica " <schoolofrawk wrote:

 

 

Erica, What fermented foods do wild animals eat and under what

circumstances? Just curious.

 

 

 

Thanks, Janet For starters, haven't you ever seen dogs bury raw meat

and dig it up later? I have, many times. Eskimos make " high meat " or

eat fermented stomach contents, too (but they are human).....

[Guest guest]

On Wednesday 14 November 2007, Erica wrote:

> For starters, haven't you ever seen dogs bury raw meat

> and dig it up later? I have, many times. Eskimos make

> " high meat " or eat fermented stomach contents, too (but

> they are human).....

 

Foxes do this too, it tenderises the meat and makes it

easier to digest. Prey animals often also eat the stomach

contents. I know that wasps like 'overripe' fruit and get

drunk on it.

 

IIUC, rotting as a biochemical process is the action of

enzyme activity isn't it?

 

--

the kneeling fool

 

raw, holistic, natural diet for body and mind

http://health.rawfoodsforhealth/

urine_therapy

[Guest guest]

School Of Rawk wrote:

 

> Have you read Wild Fermentation? Enzyme Nutrition? Have you looked at

> Anne Wigmore's success?

I have repeatedly challenged you to have an honest discussion of the

biochemistry involved, and you intentionally failed to respond; and

again, you are making unsupportable claims, this time by innuendo.

When are you going to HONESTLY discuss these issues?

 

> Enzyme Nutrition?

http://ecologos.org/lenzyme.htm

You are touting Howell's nonsense; let's discuss the biochemistry.

 

> That is all I need.

You don't " need " factual information; propaganda by ignorant

nutribabblers is all you " need " . You might think about raising your

standards.

Perhaps, you are unfamiliar with polite academic discussion? It is

the responsibility of the poster to provide support for his/her posts,

or politely withdraw them. So, " put up or shut up " .

 

> Probiotics are needed in our body. Most are depleted.

Define " probiotics " biochemically. Prove that most " are depleted " .

Prove that they exist in the external world, and that they support human

biochemistry.

 

> Other mammals eat fermented foods in the wild on purpose.

Which " mammals " and which " fermented foods " ? Be specific and

provide scientifically-credible references.

Support your claims or politely withdraw them; that is the HONEST

thing to do. You DO understand the concept of honesty, don't you?

 

Laurie

--

Scientifically-credible info on human diet:

http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html

news:alt.food.vegan.science

[Guest guest]

School Of Rawk wrote:

 

> Laurie, My advice:

> Don't drink wheatgrass.

> Don't eat fermented foods.

> Don't eat plants (their enzymes)

> Don't eat at all.

 

Now, you are just lying!

 

Show us some science that supports eating wheatgrass juice (are you

claiming that humans are herbivores and are designed to eat grass?)

 

I did NOT say don't eat plants; I asked for some science that

indicates that plant enzymes have ANY beneficial effects in the human

body, and you have presented NOTHING.

 

> LOL! Are you always this way???

Yes; I challenge people who could not pass an 8th grade science quiz

to support their erroneous scientific claims with real science; and they

can not. They are mindless propagandists spreading lies in cyberspace

and taking no responsibility for their behavior.

The " raw food movement " , if there is such a thing, has been severely

damaged by these crackpots, and many have been repelled from even

considering a raw diet because of the idiotic, irresponsible behavior of

these fools.

 

> No offense, ...

Lying about science IS VERY offensive.

 

> Lighten up.

Try reading some biochemistry, and attempt to support your claims

HONESTLY!

You are embarrassing not only yourself, but all raw fooders.

 

Laurie

 

--

Scientifically-credible info on human diet:

http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html

news:alt.food.vegan.science

[Guest guest]

Laurie,

 

First of all, I want to thank you for your ecologos website. It has been a

valuable source

of information for me, especially around exposing the various myths around the

raw diet,

as well as the benefits. And it exposes the various myths held in modern

medicine and

nutrition.

 

Erica has many time accused other of being dogmatic, yet not seeing where she

herself is

dogmatic about various topics. At one point she posted an article about how

humans are

herbivores, which anyone who understands what an herbivore is can clearly see

that

humans don't fit that definition. However, calling humans herbivores is

convenient for a

person who thinks wheatgrass is an ideal food.

 

I suppose trying to prove one's point of view about nutrition using what others

have

claimed or written about is a fool's errand, as how can one know if the authors

of these

text used scientific principles or not? I suppose if the research is validated

by multiple

sources, then we can be somewhat sure that the research is valid, but still,

does a

hypothesis and conclusion, even if validated by others, indicate reality?

 

I think this all comes from our own egoistic ideals about being right versus

wrong. If I

am doing OK eating sprouts and fermented foods and lots of fatty foods and an

occasional amount of cooked foods (this is the Hippocrates ideal), but you are

doing OK

on a diet of mostly fruits and whole vegetables, then one of us must be doing

something

wrong, as we both can be doing something right.

 

The other thing that I think fogs a person's perception of what constitutes a

healthful

diet is the notion of what works for me today may not work for me tomorrow. When

I

was eating a SAD diet, a Hippocrates diet would have offered me better health

than all

the cooked food I ate. Just because it's better than a fatty cooked food diet

does not

mean it's ideal in perpetuity, it just means that its better than what I was

doing before.

Another point that adds the confusion is that some of the diets that are

described by the

long term raw foodists, people who might eat a lot of fruit and leafy greens,

may not be

possible to nourish me right now given where my body is its healing. Coming off

of a

high fat cooked diet to a diet of mostly fruit could result in many

uncomfortable

symptoms, and result in what appears to be ill health and an unbalanced mental

state.

Again, given that the person in process has no big picture of the healing that

is

necessary to thrive under high fruit based diet, I can see why they would

contest this.

 

Rather than making claims of what is the right or wrong diet, what is always

valuable is

for people to share one's experience. Sharing what works or doesn't work for

oneself,

and perhaps a bit of history about one's diet and health background, gives

others

information about things they might try and that might work for them, without

having to

have some absolute truth or scientifically proved nutritional program.

 

In any case, thank you for your pursuit of the truth. I have benefitted from

your work.

 

Bryan

[Guest guest]

Hi Laurie,

 

I've been reading your posts over the past week or so and excerpted a

couple paragraphs below which are relevant to my thoughts. I don't

believe most people on this list have ever claimed to be scientists or

academics. I've never heard the rules of academic or scientific

discussion and this group doesn't follow them. I don't think it's

going to do you a lot of good to be angry that we aren't, and don't.

Most of us are sharing what makes sense to us based on our reading and

life experiences. If you would like to propose a certain way for us

all to discuss things, that would involve, well...much discussion, and

we could decide whether we all agree. Science is also not the only

valuable lens through which to view life.

 

Your tone and language below is very demeaning and inflammatory. It is

not conducive to learning. If you have information to share, please

feel free to share it, but the constant challenges and arguments are

really not helpful. My husband and I were actually talking about you

and your posts this weekend and he said I might want to mention this:

Have you ever noticed that when you whisper, people lean in to hear

you, and when you yell, people back up and retreat?

 

I think many of us may be open to your ideas if you would consider how

you communicate them and be a little more respectful. I, for one,

can't hear your message amidst the name-calling, bold letters

(shouting), and anger.

 

Please take a moment to read some of your posts through another's

eyes. Consider that others are not necessarily ill-meaning idiots, but

people just like you, with particular viewpoints. We are all on

different points on different paths. Do you talk this way to your

loved ones you may disagree with? Perhaps it might help to pretend

some of us are your friends or family. Or even just anyone you might

be communicating with, face-to-face. I wonder if you would talk to

someone like this in person. Do you generally find it effective to

challenge and belittle and argue with others? What is your goal here?

Do you think it's working?

 

I would be glad to have discussions with you and I think some of your

ideas may be interesting and enlightening. I hope you will soften your

style and be a little more understanding of others so that I might want

to and be able to hear you.

 

Take care,

 

Laurie

 

rawfood , Laurie < wrote:

 

Yes; I challenge people who could not pass an 8th grade science quiz

to support their erroneous scientific claims with real science; and they

can not. They are mindless propagandists spreading lies in cyberspace

and taking no responsibility for their behavior.

The " raw food movement " , if there is such a thing, has been severely

damaged by these crackpots, and many have been repelled from even

considering a raw diet because of the idiotic, irresponsible behavior of

these fools.

 

------------------------

 

Perhaps, you are unfamiliar with polite academic discussion? It is

the responsibility of the poster to provide support for his/her posts,

or politely withdraw them. So, " put up or shut up " .

[Guest guest]

Erica wrote:

 

> ... dogs bury raw meat and dig it up later?

So, now you are claiming that you can read the animals' mind to

determine that FERMENTATION was the INTENT? YOU CAN'T.

Stop lying about your magic abilities.

Perhaps, they are just hiding it from scavengers.

Describe just HOW you can differentiate between putrefactive

bacteria and fermenting species.

 

> Eskimos make " high meat " or eat fermented stomach contents, too

And, you are unaware of the botulism, and deaths, caused by this

practice?

http://ecologos.org/beaver.htm

 

Laurie

 

--

Scientifically-credible info on human diet:

http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html

news:alt.food.vegan.science

[Guest guest]

the kneeling fool wrote:

 

On Wednesday 14 November 2007, Erica wrote:

 

> Foxes do this too, it tenderises the meat and makes it easier to digest.

Can you read the animals minds, as some other crackpot has claimed

(with no proof!)

Just WHAT biochemical pathways are involved in this " tenderization " ?

HOW does the animal KNOW this biochemical intervention gas occurred?

You can NOT JUST MAKE up science. Have a little respect for the truth.

 

> IIUC, rotting as a biochemical process is the action of

enzyme activity isn't it?

Try the activity of putrefactive bacteria. Now, just HOW do they

intentionally prepare 'foods' for other species?

STOP lying about science.

 

Laurie

--

 

Scientifically-credible info on human diet:

http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html

news:alt.food.vegan.science

[Guest guest]

On Thursday 06 December 2007, Laurie wrote:

tkf:

> > IIUC, rotting as a biochemical process is the action of

> > enzyme activity isn't it?

 

laurie:

>         Try the activity of putrefactive bacteria.

 

OK, my understanding at this point is that enzymes do play a

part in degenerating a body, I did not say ALL just a part.

        

>         Now,

> just  HOW do they intentionally prepare 'foods' for other

> species?

 

I didn't state that they did. You are getting yourself mixed

up with two different authors. In this case myself and

Erica.

 

> STOP lying about science.

>

>         Laurie

 

--

the kneeling fool

 

raw, holistic, natural diet for body and mind

http://health.rawfoodsforhealth/

urine_therapy

[Guest guest]

Just WHAT biochemical pathways are involved in this " tenderization " ?

HOW does the animal KNOW this biochemical intervention gas occurred?

You can NOT JUST MAKE up science. Have a little respect for the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

Ah truth.I have a son on the autistic spectrum and have discovered there is

no absolute " truth " out there even with supposed science and all of their

studies. There is contradicting study after study over everything related

to autism.from vaccines being the culprits to allergy testing (controversy

over IGG, IGE, NAET, etc.), studies over genetic testing., science

supporting meds to control their behavior and contradicting studies showing

adverse effects of drugs. I have learned that science really can't offer

me anything to help me with my son's autism.and that's the TRUTH!

 

 

 

You told this person to not just make up science and have a little respect

for truth. Listen, Laurie, why don't you have a little respect for other

people? Then maybe we wouldn't mind listening to some of your arguments and

points you raise. However, you don't really bring up any points or make any

claims, you just are here to tell everyone they have " no science " . It is

fine to challenge people's beliefs and the 80/10/10ers. I have some

concerns myself with the diet and Doug Graham. But you seem to be screaming

at everybody on this list wanting scientific data. It's a bit ridiculous.

On my autism lists, parents try to help each other and they will say " use

high-dose Vitamin A to kill strep " or " use garlic for candida " or " take

olive leaf extract for viruses " . Nobody on these lists have complained

about showing scientific proof. Much like the autism lists, we here are

just sharing our views and what has worked for us and trying to help others.

I do not need to feel like I have to show you some study result before I

make a comment. If you question it, you can easily run a search on study

results of " whatever the topic is " . Studies require funding and so I feel

they are biased anyway. I am wondering whether you will ever be satisfied

and are here just to shut everyone up! What are your views about the

perfect diet (one that has worked for you). I would like to know! Are you

even a raw foodist?

 

 

 

Beth

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

bryan_yamamoto wrote:

 

> First of all, I want to thank you for your ecologos website. It has been a

valuable source of information for me, especially around exposing the various

myths around the raw diet, as well as the benefits. And it exposes the various

myths held in modern medicine and nutrition.

Thanks for the fan mail; it makes it all worthwhile, somehow.

I have the advantage over the great majority of self-appointed nutribabblers in

that I have a strong background in chemistry and science, thus my arguments are

based on scientific fact, not some nebulous cultural belief.

You will notice that my claims make sense and are supported by consensus

science, while most nutribabble is just that!.

 

> ... posted an article about how humans are herbivores, ...

There is another fool doing exactly that who wanted to link to my site, and I

refused to be associated with her propagandistic nonsense. It is an

embarrassment to the human species for people so ignorant to demand their right

to speak. But, idiots spreading nonsense is only one price of a 'free society';

AT LEAST SO FAR.

 

http://allinharmony.com/

 

... which purports " an amazing discovery " *Humans are HERBIVORE/

/by design " *

 

Check out that juvenile, emotion-drenched, content-free drivel.

Feel, feel, feel, NO think, think, think.

 

It is exactly these crack-pot zealots and charlatans and liars, like Elchanen,

who drive otherwise intelligent people away from even considering raw foods,

because of their transparent cloud of nonsense that they generate. Utter BS,

nothing the slightest bit factual. They just try to make up science in their

own image, and that ia simply pathological and dishonest.

They have NO credibility, yet they ARE COUNTED as 'one of us' much to our

collective determent.

It is everyones responsibility to stand up for the Truth, and DEMAND that some

acceptable level of scholarship be maintained. Otherwise, and this happens all

over the web, a small but vocal group of crackpots will take over the

conversation, as we see here.

Their ploy is to suck everyone down to their low level of incompetence, and

ignorance, and maintain control by insisting. They are frauds, resist them.

Force them to explain their claims within the framework of consensus science;

they are invoking scientific terminology, have them maintain at least a high

school level of science, or force them to shut up.

 

> ... as how can one know if the authors of these text used scientific

principles or not?

Being familiar enough with general science to be able to spot a blatant lie?

Having some essential familiarity with biochemistry is absolutely mandatory, as

nutrition is biochemical in nature.

If someone is not explaining the inherent biochemistry, that person is ignorant

and best avoided. That little rule will save people a LOT of wasted energy by

not following nutty nutritional fantasies.

 

> ... does a hypothesis and conclusion, even if validated by others, indicate

reality?

When the proposed model has predictability, that is it predicts the behavior of

the system the model is built for.

And that reality dominates until a 'better' model can be developed.

The current revolution is String Theory in far-out-physics is an example that a

new paradigm is about to revolutionize everything. Michio Kaku claims he is

writing an equation ONLY ONE INCH LONG that will predict everything in the

entire Universe!

http://www.mkaku.org/

 

> I think this all comes from our own egoistic ideals about being right versus

wrong.

This is a false binary choice: right vs wrong; it excludes intermediate values,

like 0.768.

 

> ... what works for me today may not work for me tomorrow.

Are you suggesting that our biochemistry changes in important ways on a daily

basis? Be specific in chemistry and time.

 

> ... may not be possible to nourish me right now given where my body is its

healing.

How are the nutrient needs different under such conditions; be specific in

nutrients and amounts.

 

> ... could result in many uncomfortable symptoms, and result in what appears

to be ill health and an unbalanced mental state.

One should be aware of " cleansing reactions " and how to control them on a daily

basis.

http://ecologos.org/cleansing.htm

 

Thanks...

 

Laurie

--

 

Scientifically-credible info on human diet:

http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html

news:alt.food.vegan.science

[Guest guest]

Laurie Swanson wrote:

 

> I don't believe most people on this list have ever claimed to be scientists or

academics.

The major problem is that people with no scientific expertise, those who could

not pass an 8th grade science quiz, set themselves up as experts and then issue

all sorts of false information disguised in scientific terms. That is dishonest

and just plain wrong; then other ignorant people pick up these nonsensical ides

and spread them irresponsibly. Thus, the ever-rising tide of nonsensical

nutribabble that plagues the net today.

Since I have a strong background in chemistry, the responsibility falls to me

to correct these false concepts. I do not see YOU correcting erroneous

concepts, why not?

 

> ...going to do you a lot of good to be angry ...

I don't think it does anyone a lot of good to create false, pejorative

accusations based on your false claim of being able to read minds over the

Internet. So, why don't you be a nice person and provide tangible support for

your accusations or politely withdraw them?

 

> Most of us are sharing what makes sense to us based on our reading and life

experiences.

If one reads only nonsensical nutribabble, then of what value are one's

opinions? " Life experiences " will not inform you of how much protein the human

needs.

 

> If you would like to propose a certain way for us

all to discuss things, that would involve, well...much discussion, and

we could decide whether we all agree.

Try the established rules for polite academic debate. People should support

their posts with facts and logic when challenged; that is the way the Big Boys

play, and it works just fine.

Unfortunately, people with no comprehension of baby science make all sorts of

idiotic claims that oppose demonstrated scientific fact (e.g. " living enzymes " ),

and by their insistence on being ignorant spread their ignorance to those even

more irresponsible and ignorant than they.

This IS a major problem on the Internet, where everyone is an 'expert'; maybe

you do not see it as such, but perhaps that is just a reflection of your

standards, or lack of them.

 

> Science is also not the only valuable lens through which to view life.

Science IS the ONLY valuable 'lens' with which to examine SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS!

What else is there: religion, faith, junk-food manufacturers' advertising copy,

nutritional nonsense from the government sitting is junk food pockets, ...?

 

> Your tone and language below is very demeaning and inflammatory.

This is a projection of your own ego; please provide specific quoted examples,

to allow me to respond. Or, are unsupported negative accusations all you have?

 

> I think many of us may be open to your ideas if you would consider how

you communicate them and be a little more respectful.

I respect people who respect me; however, I will not respect those who

refuse/fail to support their posts when challenged, nor those who insist on

using scientific terms incorrectly. If you were paying attention, you would

have observed this.

 

> I, for one, can't hear your message amidst the name-calling, bold letters

(shouting), and anger.

Since these are only projections of your own ego, I have no control over them.

So, try to get control of your own mind; not mine.

 

> I wonder if you would talk to someone like this in person.

I respond to everyone exactly the same; respect me and you get respect; lie

about science and get criticized, politely at first, but with increasing

intensity if you insist of propagating LIES in a public discussion.

You may have no respect for the truth, but some of us might.

 

> Do you generally find it effective to challenge and belittle and argue with

others?

I do challenge lies and present rational arguments; that is the way polite

academic discussion works.

But I do not belittle people, I leave that to themselves.

So, I am challenging you to present all quotes of my " belittling " people; when

you fail, I'd expect a polite withdrawal and apology.

 

> What is your goal here? Do you think it's working?

Correcting popular errors I have seen repeated for > 37 years.

The people who write me fan mail seem to think so; even if you do not

understand what I am doing.

 

> I would be glad to have discussions with you ...

Start by supporting your unsupported pejorative and false characterizations, or

politely withdraw them.

 

> I hope you will soften your style ...

You can not go around the word demanding that everyone conform to your

preferences/fantasies about " style " .

Especially, when your " style " includes generating unsupported, erroneous,

negative characterizations about another's consciousness which you can NOT

access.

I.e., false claims of mental telepathy do not give you power over others. That

IS a low-level trick, however it does not work on me.

 

Laurie

 

--

Scientifically-credible info on human diet:

http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html

news:alt.food.vegan.science

[Guest guest]

I will argue that in my college courses on human biology that many of

the " vitamins " necessary to human life and (created only biological

organisms other than human cells) have " human intestinal bacteria " as

one of the most univeral sources for vitamin creation for the human

organism. There are almost always other sources in human nutrition

listed for these vitamins but the list is most often rounded out

with " and human intestinal bacteria. "

 

Here is an interesting article from a magazine of peer-reviewed

articles on cutting edge scientific findings, that human health can

depend on the proper symbiosis of microbe communities.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/9433/title/Nurturing_Our_Micr

obes

 

It is well established that that a healthy microbial community in our

GI tract is a powerful natural source of compounds that human cells can

not make for themselves. Illnesses (dysentery, etc.) and medications

(oral antibiotics, etc.) can disrupt or destroy these communities. Dr.

Ann Wigmore's technique of culturing Bifidus and Acidophilus bacteria

in plant matter suspensions and then drinking those bacteria-

laden " fermented " concoctions seems scientifically valid. She trained

her students (who may not own microscopes) to learn the odor of a

properly incubating probiotic culture. The one danger of her work is

people incubating unhealthy bacteria and imbibing them. This can be

overcome by inoculating plant materials with with dried (dormant)

bacteria of the desired variety.

 

Having used her techniques at her institute in Puerto Rico over several

months, I can personally report a great increase in regularity and

personal vitality.

 

The article above talks of the diversity of microbes alive in the human

being, and that the average human being's body has more individual

microbes living within it than human cells. The article goes on to

state that there is current conjecture that some diseases such as

psoriasis may actually be caused by an unbalanced microbe community on

the surface of the skin. There may be a future trend in medicine to

begin treating people " pro-biotic " therapies on many places in the body

beside the GI tract.

 

Dr. Ann's theories on pro-biotic treatments are standing up to the

science. Her desire for diverse fermentations made of bacteria from

healthy organic plant materials, is also in line with urrent scientific

findings. A healthy live ferment of pro-biotic bacteria is greatly

helpful to the human organism.