Learning opportunities (WAS: REQUEST purpose of this {Rawfood} list)

[Guest guest]

But I do think a lot of the source of confusion and argument here is centered

around these

issues:

 

Some people believe this is a " Natural Hygiene " group.

 

Some people believe this is a " vegan raw " group.

 

Some people believe this is simply a " raw " group.

 

I just think there is a lot of misinformation and bad science on this group,

which is a shame,

because the basic tenet of raw food is incredibly healthful. But people have

these one-man

agendas against certain specific foods (whether it's dates or corn or raw

garlic)

and so no matter what you might want to eat, someone on here pipes up about how

it's going to

give you cancer or destroy your myelin sheath if you eat it. (And I'm not

talking about those

who say that a certain food doesn't make them feel good -- that is something

else entirely.)

 

I think it's not healthy to rule out so very many good foods. I believe in a

diet with some

real variety in it.. It's unfortunate that the raw foods movement has so much

orthorexia going

around ... but any severe/extreme diet I suppose is bound to attract people who

harbor that

tendency inherently. The raw diet is pretty severe/extreme in our society (even

if it is

healthy), so... there you have it.

 

But I do think some clarification about whether it's a RAW group, a Natural

Hygiene group, or a

vegan raw group, might help?

______________________

 

Hi Kristen,

Thanks so very much for gathering all these thoughts in such a reasonable and

orderly way. What

you write here, we can surely discuss. My intention behind last evening's post

was merely to

request that we set aside that portion of the conversation that appears, at

least to me, to

arise from anger. The RF world is quite small, and I believe it unlikely that

our lashing out at

one another over garlic and sprouts benefits any of us.

 

Also, I so wish to encourage you ... and others, perhaps ... to distinguish

between comments

that particular foods do not match our species' biological design, which is

Nature's design, and

any notion of being " against " anything. I do realize that some have a style of

communication

that may sound like being " against " garlic or onions or whatever. And sometimes

matters of

communication style may mask the speaker's underlying intent. This is

particularly prevalent, I

believe, in email communications. We tend to rush through writing our emails,

then someone on

the other end sits there and tries to read thoughtfully what we've written less

thoughtfully

(less mindfully, if you will). Naturally, in such a scenario, misinterpretations

arise on a

regular basis.

 

There are, indeed, those who come from a place of dogma about this or that. At

the same time,

there are others among us who come not from a place of dogma, but rather from a

solid

comprehension not only of contemporary science, which is riddled with gaping

holes and often

rather imbecilic in its " findings " , but also with the underlying nature and

principles that

distinguish good science from bad. By this I mean, there are a few among us who

have actually

read some of what Roger Bacon and Isaac Newton and Werner Heisenberg and Thomas

Jefferson and

Ben Franklin and others have written, and who are therefore in a position to

read and comprehend

contemporary " scientific studies " through an entirely different lens than those

who have not

such learning in their background. And I further suggest -- only suggest -- that

such people are

rather uncommon nowadays, and that they represent an extraordinary resource for

learning, for

those who would avail themselves of that resource.

 

Personally, I am neither against nor for these items as foods. I would simply

offer that these

items, when consumed as foods, elicit a very acute eliminative response from

within the human

body -- everyone's body -- and that this response strongly suggests that the

body interprets

these substances not as food, but as foreign matter.

 

- Are there studies hailing the medicinal properties of garlic? Absolutely.

 

- Are there studies the " prove " taking an aspirin a day " reduces one's risk of

heart attack " .

Definitely.

 

But why would one wish to reduce one's risk of heart attack, when one could

simply create health

and eliminate all consideration of heart attack? And similarly, why would one

wish to

investigate the medicinal properties of garlic, one one could create health from

the inside out,

and eliminate all consideration of medicinal requirements?

 

In other words, it is absolutely correct to say that garlic contains this

antibiotic substance

and so forth. What I suggest here is not to the contrary. Rather, I am

suggesting that such a

line of inquiry is, on the face of it, a distraction from what I think people

really seek here

-- health, vitality, and ultimately the liberty and sense of choice that can

only arise in a

context of health and vitality.

 

Mark Twain once wrote that (if I have it right), " One of the damndest things is

that everybody

has his reasons. " I realize that everyone chooses his/her own course through all

this. At the

same time, it is unlikely that we will learn much from those who insist that

" this study says

such-and-such, " when the insisting person lacks the background to comprehend and

interpret such

experimental research. For what is publicized (in the popular press) seldom

matches what is

published (in the scientific journals).

 

Example: A review was done peer-reviewed articles on global warming. 100% of

these articles

identified the same general problems, and with the same level of concern. But a

concurrent

review of articles on the same subject matter but published in the popular press

found that more

than half of these articles conflicted with the scientific findings -- and even

went so far,

time and again, to cite some of these studies in support of the exact opposite

conclusion as was

originally published in the study itself.

 

So I agree with you on this ... that few are prepared to genuinely comprehend

and interpret what

comes from the scientific community.

 

Anyway, returning to my original point, I would just like to see an end to the

vitriolics,

that's all. As for the nature of this group, it is a large and diverse group, I

doubt there is

one single theme. The group's creator and moderator, Roger Haeske, is a devoted

and enthusiastic

proponent of natural hygiene, the old fashioned way (without all the dairy and

stuff). But his

approach here has been light-handed indeed, and I support him in this. That just

my opinion.

 

Best to all,

Elchanan