why it "stincts"

General commentary

     In raw food circles, recently there has come a new raw diet approach called Instinctotherapy, created by Guy-Claude Burger, wherein a reasonably-sounding analysis of human instincts is given and a resulting dietary discipline resting on same is produced.  Although most of the claims are rational, a disturbing perversion of logic is systematically applied that asserts the human consumption of raw animal flesh and other raw animal items is instinctual.
     The purpose of this page is to demonstrate the systematized errors that lead to this, and other, false conclusions, so only the questionable passages are quoted and responded to here.  The source of Burger's text cited here, although other copies of his work are posted on the web.
     Apparently, Burger was recently sentenced to 15 years imprisonment as an "unamendable" sex-offender of children in France, and previously in Switzerland.  One wonders if the animal hormones consumed in raw animal flesh, fish, and eggs were contributory to this behavior.  This behavior demonstrates GCB's remarkable ability to justify behavior that is clearly not instinctual.

     These questions/answers are from an interview with GCB, and for organizational convenience are rearranged by topic.

     This is the fundamental precept of Instinctotherapy:
     GCB: "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."
     Guns, knives, and intentional putrefaction of one's food before eating, as is recommended for Instincto flesh-eating, is obviously quite different than food "directly given by nature" as humans could "obtain it in its natural habitat".

     GCB: "Whenever a food no longer comes in the same form as our ancestors found it in the wild, thereís no reason why our instincts should operate properly."
     This seems reasonable, since our digestive biochemistry has not had time to 'adapt' to any foods not in our evolutionary past, and there is no known mechanism by which such 'adaptation' could occur; however, the fatal flaw in this concept is ignoring the fact that NONE of present day commercial foods are the same species or varieties as those existing in the African jungle where our ancestors are alleged to have evolved.  All present day agricultural products have been substantially modified by human selection, and intentional breeding experiments, for hundreds to thousands of years; way before the present dangerous transgenic/genetically modified organisms have been forced on an unknowing public.  If GCB's statement is true, then Instinctotherapy is invalid, by definition.

     GCB:  "One manís meat is another manís poison. For some people, some so-called poisonous berries can be useful, while theyíll be harmful for other people. Itís quite plausible that in some cases, the body needs a small amount of poison. Thatís even a pharmaceutical principle: in small doses, poison becomes a remedy."
     This old superstition is patently false.  In Nature, we see all adults of a species eating exactly the same items, except when said items are eaten due to cultural processes, not nutritional needs, like isolated chimp flesh-eating that is social in character.  It is absurd to believe that one human's biochemistry is so different than another's that a 'food' beneficial for one would be "poison" to another.  Here, GCB buy's into the medical dogma that one can poison oneself to health; the current failure of modern pharmaceutical medicine is evidence that this belief is false.  The body is able to heal itself, and certainly does not need any exogenous poison to assist it.  In fact, GCB developed his Instinctotherapy specifically because pharmaceutical medicine has failed.

     GCB: "Instincts, on the other hand, have millions of years of experience behind them_all of which has accumulated in our genetic memory."
     It is not the 'experiences' that have accumulated in our 'genetic memory', but rather the sequences of genes that have manifested the most successful progeny.

     GCB: "Natural selection ensures that weaker individuals and their descendants are killed off to the benefit of the better endowed ones, in order for the species always to be perfecting itself ."
     Actually, the current Theory of Evolution claims that those individuals who are 'more fit' have an unclearly-defined 'reproductive advantage' such that their variation overtakes the entire population over large amounts of time.  A major problem I see with the Theory of Evolution is that mechanisms of "natural selection" supposedly responsibly for these changes, and speciation itself, are never clearly elucidated.

     GCB: "Moreover, yew trees may not have been part of horsesí natural habitat where they evolved their genetic background_which would account for the disruption_unless it is simply a chink in natureís armour."
     His whole theory is based on the infallibility of Natural Law, yet he postulates a "chink in nature's armour".  This seems contradictory; many more self-contradictions will be shown.

     GCB: "That would entail an impressive number of books_approximately the equivalent of a library that housed 1,000 large volumes of 3,000 pages each, with 5,000 letters per page, or 50 hefty encyclopedias, that is, 50 times as much as all of Western culture."
     All of Western culture fits in one encyclopedia?  What are all those other books in libraries?

     GCB: "Hyperacidity is very likely the leading cause of ulcer, since ulcers typically heal after a few months of instinctotherapy."
     "The good news is that most ulcers are caused by an infection with the bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, and can be cured in about two weeks with antibiotics."

     GCB: "A living complex is necessarily subservient to laws of balance, selection, rejection, preference, and exchange. The need to survive at the expense of the outside world requires an economic scenario, even on the level of microscopic entities. It is, therefore, hardly surprising, that the very same laws of economy apply whether one is dealing with a country, an individual, or a simple cell."
     Drawing an equivalence between natural laws, which are constant, and human affairs, which are driven by irrationalities and not bounded by any laws, shows a lack of understanding of General Systems Theory and analytical skills.  One does not see "laws of balance, selection, rejection, preference, and exchange" mentioned is scientific texts.

     GCB: "When one is crammed full of grains and one never eats fruit, eating a single banana is enough to set off a minor explosion in the body."
     Why would that be?  Bananas and grains are mostly starch.  Has anyone else ever seen this?  Perhaps, combining sweet, sugary fruit and concentrated starch might cause indigestion and internal fermentation, but is not the fault of the fruit, but the combination.

      GCB: "A few world records held by the pioneers of instinctotherapy. The following foods were eaten raw, without bringing out any digestive distress, direct or otherwise. 52 egg yolks at a single sitting + 151 egg yolks over two days, 156 oysters at a single meal, 48 bananas at a single meal, 67 bananas in a single day, 120 passion fruits at a single meal, 210 passion fruits in a single day, 7 cucumbers at a single dinner, 16 melons (approximately weighing a pound apiece) at a single meal (a twelve year-old girl), 16 cassias in a single day, 1.35 kilos (approximately 3 pounds) of honey as a dessert, 7 liters of water in a single day
     Most would interpret this type of behavior as a profound eating disorder.

     GCB: "Obeying oneís instincts is, thus, synonymous with freedom."
     True, but see how human instincts are systematically perverted to 'allow' the eating of raw flesh in the "Flesh-eating humans?" section, below.

     GCB: "It has even been shown that instinctual cravings reflect bodily needs on an hourly basis. A chicken who lays her daily egg changes her diet depending on her needs. She feels like high-protein foods while producing the egg white, is then attracted to water to help the egg build up its moisture, and later to ground oyster powder high in calcium when she makes the shell. From one minute to the next, she knows how to make up for her metabolic deficiencies, without even having studied dietetics."
     Where, indeed, would the chicken in Nature have access to "ground oyster powder" such as to be able to develop an "instinct" to eat it?

     _Some people make it to 90, eating like everybody else. Do cooked foods happen to be better suited to them?
     GCB: "Their genetic background may have partly adapted and be protecting them. However, that makes no difference to the fact that you canít pick and choose at birth, when it comes to being among the better adapted. "
     GCB rests his whole theory on his belief that no adaptation to faulty diet is possible, yet there is this contradiction.

     GCB: "Wasnít it Francis Blanche who said: ďMadame, donít wait for your breasts to droop, let them down.Ē I think it wiser to say: ďEat raw food!Ē That will most assuredly firm up your muscles."
     Breasts are fat, not "muscles".

     _Chickens peck sand.
     GCB: " ... to produce a shell, not to grow nice teeth, so far as I know.
     Sand is silicon dioxide, there is NO calcium from which to "produce a shell".  Chickens eat small pebbles and keep them in their 'crop' such as to be able to grind grain; as an animal husbandman, GCB should know this.  Just what we need -- another dietary guru totally ignorant of chemistry.

     GCB: "My wife immediately got up to swaddle the child, as is usual in instincto deliveries."
     Swaddle?  That's a practice of imprisoning a baby in tight wraps to immobilize it and keep it quiet.  It certainly is not the least bit natural, nor is clothing instinctual, unless one has moved out of the tropical human ecological niche and is freezing to death.  Swaddling inhibits movement and insulates the child from all human contact.  It is brutal and abusive.

     GCB: "The greatest possible choice makes it easier to retrain one's instincts."
     Isn't the idea to develop awareness of and follow one's instincts; NOT "retrain" them.  Isn't retraining them to the perversions of cooking the problem?

     GCB: "But don't escape instinctos' sharp noses, since years later they filter out concentrated in feces, urine, perspiration, and excretions of all kinds."
     Here, the claim is made that previous toxins take "years" to eliminate, yet most raw fooders notice the lack of odors in a much shorter period than that; is this because the instincto diet is not particularly healthy because of the raw meat?  And, that it produces its own smelly toxins because the raw, putrefying flesh is not properly digested?

     GCB: "As the substances remain in the bowels for 2 or 3 days..."
     Most raw fooders experience multiple bowel movements a day; so Instinctos must be really constipated from the raw meat.

     GCB: "Easy [bowel] movements (one to two a day, well-formed and that rarely require toilet paper)
     "Well-formed", a concept borrowed from medical texts referring to average, low-fiber, meat-eaters, indicates constipation and dehydration.  Notice the contradiction to the "2 or 3 days" above.

     GCB: "In respect of human food, the first basic notions pertaining to cooking go back some two millions years (when the first tools came into being), the use of fire goes back 400,000 years and maybe as far back as a million years, and cooking proper, coupled with the use and production of cereal grains and animal milk, goes back tens of millions of years."
     This is apparently a severe typographical error, agriculture is about 10,000 years old.

      GCB: "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 and sprouted cereals, (3) fresh fruits if desired, (4) nuts and oil-bearing seeds, and finally (5) dried fruits and honey. Never soak your dried fruits in water
     This is complete lunacy. The concept of "meals" is an industrial artifact; all the other apes and other species with a plant-based diet nibble all day long.  IF GCB was respecting his "instincts" as he claims, the advice would be to eat only when hungry, because hunger is an instinct.  Here, he lapses into insupportable dogma, just as he does with the egg, fish, and flesh dogma.  
     People with knowledge of food combining for optimum digestion will immediately recognize the horrific combinations being recommended here: animal flesh, vegs, starchy grains, fruits, nuts (impossible to digest even on their own), and dried fruit and honey on top of that mess.
     There is no wonder Instinctos do not experience cleansing reactions eating indigestible combinations like this.
     Note: elsewhere, he rightfully claims grains/cereals are a recent human invention and should not be eaten, now he recommends to eat 'sprouted cereals'.

     GCB: "Eat nothing between meals; this only makes digestion more difficult and opens the door to bulimia (compulsive eating)."
     All the other apes nibble all day long; none eats two "meals" a day.  Why don't they develop bulimia?

     GCB: "Casse [a variety of cinnamon] is essential because it eases the process of detoxination and exerts a regulatory effect on the system."
     One's body regulates detox and regulates itself; this is in absolute opposition to Instincto principles!  This is the taking of toxic drugs to interfere with normal biochemistry.

     GCB: "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." 
     It is generally agreed and experienced by dietary explorers that less food, not more, will accelerate cleansing processes; that is why a "fast" is not called a "slow".  Similarly, when the body initiates a vigorous cleansing process, such as a "cold/flu", then one loses one's appetite: proof that the body wants less, not more, food during such cleansing episodes.  Perhaps the toxic spice [casse] and various putrefying raw animal proteins consumed by Instinctos have disturbed normal biochemistry sufficiently to create these bizarre anomalies?  Our biochemistry does the detox work; most certainly, no "enormous quantities" of food is necessary "to provoke" detox, as is claimed.


     _No wine, though?
     GCB: "There are better things than that. Fermented coconut milk, for instance; itís light, sweet, pungent, and pleasantly alcoholic. It tastes better than champagne when instincts feel like it."
     Better?  Alcohol is alcohol, and is the result of fermentation of sugars.  Actually, alcohol has a really unpleasant taste; if you want to taste pure alcohol, try gin or vodka.  Whatever pleasantness in alcoholic drinks is the result of sugars and the fruity tastes of the original source of sugars.  

     And then the contradiction:
     GCB: "
Instincts protect one from natural alcohols. Alcoholism wouldnít exist if people drank wine in the form of fermented grapes. Theyíre delicious and one stops spontaneously when oneís on the verge of euphoria.

     GCB: "The same thing holds good for the flavor and smell of cigarettes. At first, one is turned off by the acridness, and then smoking becomes appealing owing to the euphoric effect of nicotine. Once smokers have been weaned, they are surprised at having been able to stomach substances that are revolting to them in a normal state."
     Perhaps the same may be said of the acid attacks of pineapple, or the nausea and vomiting created by eating putrefying raw meat?

     _Have you ever tried out natural drugs?
     GCB: "Not personally. Several of my colleagues had a go at raw Indian hemp (cannabis). One of them chanced to end up at a Spaniardís place whose garden was overrun with it. He tried a few leaves and finding them tasty, he went on eating, as he would have eaten lambís lettuce. The owner of the garden went from mild concern to downright panic, because my friend had eaten far beyond the lethal dose. Finally, the owner of the garden ran off his herbivorous predator_not so much for fear of what was happening to his garden, as that this strange visitor would kick the bucket from an overdose. However, nothing happened. No hallucination, no arousal, no laughing fits, nor any of the symptoms common on marijuana.
     _And what if heíd had a similar intake in tokes or brownies?
     GCB: "In that case, I expect he would have been in for trouble. Once a molecule has been damaged by heat, it doesnít produce the same impact on the body. The latter reacts against a natural plant either because our instincts place a limit on the amount we can eat or because the enzymes in our body are able to break down toxic molecules in their initial state. The alteration caused by heating screws up both defense mechanisms."
     Actually, GCB is ignorant of the fact that the form of THC in raw cannabis is a different isomer than the delta-9 THC that has specific receptors in the human brain.  This is the reason that smoking or cooking is necessary to produce the altered state of consciousness; the high temperature changes the inactive form into the active form.  This is totally unrelated to GCB's hypothesis about "toxic molecules" and "enzymes".  A more interesting question is why are there specific receptors for delta-9 THC and the real psychedelics already evolved in the human brain?

     _And what of opium?
     GCB: "Try poppy seeds; they taste prohibitively bitter. Without smoking them or without heroin processing techniques, no one would have gone and driven themselves loopy with the calyxes of those hapless flowers that canít have been intended to wreck human lives.
     Actually, poppy seeds have a rather pleasant nutty taste - does this mean we are supposed to eat them??  Opium comes from the sap, not the seeds.  Plants do not wreck human lives, humans do!     

Taste changes

     Here are some of the more bizarre claims made by GCB.  Frequent statements are made that the body has an instinctual "aversion threshold" that will provide a strong, unmistakable signal, this being a rapid and intense change of taste of an item as it is being eaten, when the body has consumed 'enough' of that 'food' for the present time.  
      In my ~ 33 years of experimenting with various plant-based diets, and in talking with innumerable other people experimenting with diets, and reading various vegetarian/vegan and raw diet-oriented Internet newsgroups and mailing lists for over a decade, I have never experienced, or heard of anyone else experiencing, any such rapid onset "aversion threshold".  
     Yes, as one's body detoxes, it is common for people to gradually come to reject 'foods' that they previously 'liked', but this is strictly a function of the enhanced sensitivity of taste, or the realization of some digestive difficulty, as the body gets healthier and better able to respond to lesser and lesser insults.  But, this is entirely different than the taste of any food suddenly changing to being unpalatable while eating it, and for it to return to a pleasant taste the next day.

     GCB: "A useful food can become unnecessary or even downright harmful when it is being eaten, once the bodily needs have been catered to. Flavor abruptly changes and unpleasant cues make it aversive (tartness, acridness, astringency, sharpness, one mouthís on fire, bitterness; the texture feels granular, dry, tacky, etc...). Nudging the limits of pleasurable palatability is what we call reaching oneís aversion threshold."
     Strange -- this alleged aversion threshold is not mentioned in conventional raw fooder communications.  Does this happen only when one is poisoned by raw flesh??

     GCB: "In one of my recent experiences, shepherdís purse tasted to me surprisingly like Hungarian goulash. I sucked on a few stems for two or three minutes and they tasted like a kind of roasted meat sauce, before taking on an unpleasant grasslike taste_meaning, that my need had been met.
     A useful food sometimes incites a reaction, suggesting that the body is making the most of more relevant incoming substances to clear previously accumulated abnormal, toxic substances. Usually, people donít understand that to be a healthy reaction. They think theyíve been poisoned or that their instincts are ineffectual or even non-existent, whereas, in fact, theyíre experiencing the backlash of previously stored cooked molecules."
     Here, GCB confuses a toxic poisoning effect, which is instantaneous, and a normal biochemical detox process, which progresses at a rather constant pace, unless provoked into a more intense level of activity, such as a "cold/flu".  Most poisons provoke an immediate response of the body, normal biochemistry is not turned on or off by external substances.  Real foods do not provoke any reaction, except pleasure, and they may be eaten in a monodiet for weeks with no unpleasant effects.  Toxic plants, such as 'herbs' DO provoke immediate unpleasant reactions, and those immediate reactions are the reason that 'herbs' were chosen out of the local plants and called 'medicines'.  Eat a pound of fruit, and then eat a pound of your favorite 'curative herb' and see if you survive the experiment.  From the point of view of the plants, there is not such thing as 'food', 'herb', 'spice', 'poison', 'medicine', etc., they are just plants.  Those names were invented by humans to describe their chosen cultural application; such categorization is false.

     GCB: "Instinctotherapy is the acme of anti-dietetics, since it is based on pleasure rather than on applying more or less frustrating rules. It is at loggerheads with slimming diets or fasts, which always involve punishing oneself somewhat. All it takes is eating a single type of cooked food to trigger off a general overload in several nutrients whose amounts instincts werenít able to gauge properly. The following day, any raw food will taste less appealing."
     GCB refers to many mysterious, instantaneous and overnight, 'taste changes', such as these, that are apparently unknown in the general raw food experience.  Further, instincts are not able to measure the amounts of "several" different specific nutrients, as stated.  There is no evidence that instincts can measure the amount of protein, fat, carbohydrate, vitamins, minerals, etc.

      _I would now like to know why the pineapple suddenly turned prohibitively abrasive.
     GCB: "Pineapple contains an enzyme, bromelaine, that dissolves protein and corrodes mucus membranes in the mouth.
     _But how is it that you werenít feeling anything unpleasant?
     GCB: "You didnít either, until after a few mouthfuls. The body will only take pineapple so long as it can produce enzymes that neutralize bromelaine. After that, when the body draws the line, which you may realize when the taste of the fruit turns sharp_there are no buffer enzymes left in your saliva so that pineapple starts digesting your mouth."
     Let's see, the human ape, evolving in the African forest, where there is no modern-day pineapple, and specifically no horrifically unripe, highly acidic, modern-day pineapple, developed a specific enzyme to "neutralize bromelaine" in anticipation of humans cultivating it and eating it excessively unripe in a completely different ecosystem, tens of thousands of years later?  It is far more likely that the high acid content of always-unripe commercial pineapples is the source of pain when eating them.  GCB has eaten many, many pineapples, so may have destroyed his own alarm signals, or has caused extensive scarring and desensitized the tissues so assaulted, similarly to one who persists with tobacco smoking until the pain disappears.  Or the Instincto that keeps eating raw flesh until the nausea and vomiting stop.

     GCB: "Now, you know what I mean when I speak of aversion threshold. The same thing holds true for a great many fruits, and especially with wild fruits which are virtually impossible to overeat. Taking a look at facts, for one and the same person, the amount of a food they can eat before it turns aversive varies greatly from one day to the next. Very often, one witnesses very decrepit people eating heaps of passion fruits with unflagging relish that other guests, who are in far better health, find dreadfully tart."
     Another claim of a rapid change of taste of a single food, which is not known by mainstream raw food enthusiasts. "Very decrepit people" may not have a functioning taste ability.  When I moved to Florida and 'discovered' papayas, I ate a monodiet of them for several weeks on end, and never got to any "aversion threshold".  Unfortunately, shortly thereafter, climactic changes have rendered them susceptible to a virus, and they have not ripened to the point of being edible for many years.
     Wild fruits, not having been cultivated to increase their sugar content for thousands of years, like the mango, are generally highly acidic.  That is the reason for the intense cultivation and crossbreeding history of all commercial fruits and vegetables; to make them edible, and larger, and more shippable to produce more profit.

     GCB: "Another proof that oneís enjoyment can turn sour occurs with foods that donít corrode mucus membranes. For instance, egg yolk takes on a straw-like taste verging on that of chicken droppings_which is absolutely unbearable. Still another proof that aversion threshold does function is that the unpleasantness in taste crops up right at the moment when the amount of food taken up provides the best possible balance."
     How, indeed, is this mythical "balance" measured and then shown to occur at that exact moment? There is no way to support this always-unsubstantiated claim.
     Since animal protein is not one of the human ape's natural foods, GCB's often repeated but totally unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, it is highly likely that partially digested animal proteins get into the bloodstream by "gut leakage" and thus cause an allergic reaction that GCB is misinterpreting as the "satisfaction" of some non-existing, unproven "need" for animal protein.

     GCB: "There are all kinds of criteria that account for balance_for instance, digestive well-being. It only takes going slightly beyond aversion threshold, in terms of taste and feeling full, for digestive potential to be lessened. If one forces oneself to eat two or three spoonfuls of egg yolk too many or if one mashes a banana because itís easier to eat that way, well, then, one rediscovers very quickly that one has a stomach."
     Here, the bizarre claim is that by only mashing a banana, one experiences indigestion.  Has anyone else ever experienced that?

     GCB: "As it happens, crudivorians [raw fooders] experience very many bouts of detoxification that sometimes spell untoward consequences. When things have gone too far for the body to react, no detoxification symptom is touched off and this ought to give us cause for concern. But, given that there is no understanding of some symptoms betokening useful processes inside the body, people reason the other way around and believe they're in sound health. I grant you that when instinctotherapy is deftly applied, detoxification symptoms remain virtually in abeyance. However, if you take yourself over into an imbalance during a cathartic clearance, that clearance is likely to run away with itself and take on the guise of a varyingly definite illness."
     I find this paragraph particularly incomprehensible; but, apparently, Instinctos do not experience the cleansing processes and obvious detox common to real raw fooders.  Again, is this the result of the body being poisoned by raw animal flesh and indigestible combinations to the extent that it can not cleanse/heal itself?  Is there a damaging effect of the animal hormones, including the 'fight or flight' hormones, on human biochemistry?
     It is simple to control the intensity of these cleansing reactions by varying what one eats on a daily basis, but apparently GCB is unaware of this.  

     _Is that why crudivorism has a reputation for being rather risky?
     GCB:" When one eats bowl after bowl of grated carrots or fresh spinach with oil and vinegar dressing, it doesnít make dietary sense. Eating raw foods sets in motion various cleansing processes within the body, which, in themselves, are healthy, but eating too much can cause things to get out of hand_hence, the sometimes distressing symptoms that occur when one hasnít fully mastered the situation. With instinctotherapy, proper intake takes care of itself if one applies the therapy properly."
     Raw food has a reputation of being "rather risky"?  That's news to me, especially since our species, as did all species, evolved on totally raw food, but GCB does tend to just make things up.
     If he is complaining about a monodiet making no sense, most chimps will fill up on whatever local fruit is available and then go on to the next food source; that is, they generally eat mono meals.  "Proper" administration of a raw food transitional diet is possible, but GCB denies this.

Flesh-eating humans?

Who's kidding whom?

     Here's where the whole Instinctotherapy theory degenerates into bizarre illogic, self-contradiction, and absolutely insupportable dogma.  Remember how the whole essence of Instinctotherapy is allegedly based on the pleasurable taste and odor of the target food?  This shibboleth is abandoned completely and a convoluted, self-contradictory exercise in self-deception is substituted for logic and consistency in order to justify eating animal flesh.
     Insightfully, GCB provides a useful analysis of how cultural conditioning and subconscious processes control our thinking without our knowledge, then he allows these same subconscious, culturally-conditioned processes to undermine his alleged "love" for "logic".

     GCB: "I always loved formal logic."
     Yet, logic is rapidly abandoned to justify, allow, and even encourage the eating of raw animal flesh.

     GCB: "We would do well to become aware that healthwise we're all tied down to a system from the outset and are caught in a web of thought and taboos that reach deep into our subconscious mind."
     Yep, but this admitted web of subconscious thoughts is the source of GCB's irrational embracing of deeply culturally-conditioned animal flesh eating, not logic and not instincts, as we shall see.

     GCB: "For instance, the mere fact of knowing that one falls victim to one's subconscious mind and that the subconscious mind, in turn, falls victim to all kinds of obsessions relating to eating pleasure, all that enables one to step back from oneself a bit, stay the course, and resist fleeting temptation."
     "We control ourselves much less than we believe. Making a decision on a conscious level doesn't necessarily entail the subconscious mind going along with it. Now, the subconscious has a far greater pull than the conscious mind. The former bears the full weight of all the experiences and education acquired from infancy: anxiety, gratification, frustration, etc... integrated into the irrational and pre-critical mind. Morover, those subconscious constructs that cling to us are in keeping with the basic premises of our environment; they make us open to outward agression or pressure. So, we typically remain unable to keep to the behavior that we view as being sensible and that we have decided to conform to for any great length of time. Some preposterous idea arises out of a leaning towards anxiety or a subconscious dilemma and we feel caught off our guard and thrown out of gear. We felt so sure of our position, and overnight, we find ourselves back to our pots and pans, our minds having already worked out a complete array of justifications that buffer us utterly against our own contradictions. One has to be wary of oneself if one wants to manage such a change in diet in the long term. Nothing is as hard as recovering from cooking.
     Strangely, GCB recognizes the illogical cultural programming at the subconscious level and how it perverts what seems to be rational thought; however, his endlessly self-contradictory, irrational, counter-instinctual, logical perversions absolutely necessary to justify Instincto eating of rotting flesh is not seen to be the product of just such a process.  That is, he sees the problem, yet stays ensnared by it.

     _And so, is one protected from contamined shellfish?
     GCB: "People are often poisoned by shellfish. I think that, in a great many cases, the effect of a germ toxin, supposedly present in shellfish that has gone bad, is confused with the clean-out process that is triggered when one eats the shellfish."
      _You mean, the clean-out is triggered when one absorbs the toxin?
     GCB: "The shellfish, rather, triggers it, since the same reactions following absorption occur with shellfish, fish, or other animal protein that is perfectly fresh. The same thing has even occurred after the absorption of vegetable protein. The presence of germs in a food only serves to stimulate the reaction. I would even go so far as to say that the body possibly uses the germ to help carry out the cleansing process."
     Again, gut leakage of partially-digested foreign animal proteins, in addition to bacteriological toxins, triggering an immunological response is the more likely cause.  The bizarre, unsupported hypothesis that "germs" "help carry out the cleansing process" is given; however, the body's biochemistry is quite capable of cleansing itself (within limits) and does not "need" any exogenous beings to carry out its functions.
     At least, he admits that people are often poisoned by shellfish; of course, the fact that there are NO shellfish, or any fish, in the Tropical jungle where we evolved is conveniently ignored.  And next, he admits that raw herbivore flesh poisoned his disciples.

     GCB: "My instinct initiates, who numbered but a few in those days, and myself had divided up among us a roebuck [A small European and Asiatic deer] we had purchased from a hunter. This wild venison tasted heavenly to most of us, in spite of ever so slight a feeling of revulsion. The following day, my phone rang incessantly: Some of the roebuck enthusiasts had brought up their dinner during the night. My first thought was that the meat must have been contaminated and that their digestive systems had been ridding them of the toxins through vomiting. Another conjecture was that eating such a wild ďinitialĒ food set off reactions that were intricately bound up with previous poisoning resulting from cooking_the most logical interpretation being that the body was undergoing some rather unpleasant upheaval in order to cleanse itself."
     The central Instincto concept of "initial food", that to which we have genetically adapted in our deep evolutionary past, is conveniently abandoned here: European and Asiatic deer do NOT live in the tropical forest where our species evolved.  So again, logic and Instincto principles give way to blood lust; this will be a recurring theme. This abandonment of GCB's "love" of "logic" and the convenient, repeated relinquishment of Instincto principles in favor of consuming animal products is a result of that previously admitted web of subconscious thoughts, no doubt.  Yet, even knowing that he controlled by this web, GCB fails to break free.
     Note, also, that the principle of eating only what is pleasurable falls by the wayside, in favor of eating that which produces a "feeling of revulsion".  And, further, the body's vomiting up the flesh meal is obviously a clear statement that it is NOT a food fit for our species; yet this specific vomiting is conveniently, and irrationally, blamed on previous "cooking"; the indigestible flesh is, of course, blameless.  Again, GCB intentionally confuses an immediate poisoning response with normal detox, and only to support his irrational fixation on animal flesh.

     GCB: "The overwhelming majority of such reactions never get beyond a feeling of slight nausea_meaning that something is happening deep within the body, even if there are no other clearly perceived ill effects. Obviously, such reactions are responsible for the disgust people generally feel when they start eating raw food_especially for raw meat and raw fish. It would be highly instructive to know why the body reacts, in such a way, to foods which, by the looks of them, are not toxic.
     What a heroic effort to avoid the obvious: the human has NO physiological equipment (sharp claws, fangs, beak, talons, ...) that ALL the other natural flesh-eaters do.  We are too slow to run down and catch any animal, and the Instincto certainly does NOT kill his fleshy prey with his bare hands (HINT: natural equipment) and eat his flesh, through the skin and fur with just his teeth, as ALL the other natural flesh-eaters do.  The macho Instincto eats only cleanly filleted slices of muscle meat of the body of one conveniently killed and dressed by another.
     And where's the "disgust people generally feel when they start eating raw food_especially for raw meat and raw fish."?  That's a lie, too.  People do not feel "disgust" when eating raw fruits or vegetables.  The do feel disgust when eating raw flesh and fish simply because they are being poisoned by same, and further, humans have a strong anti-instinct when it comes to killing and eating animals, whole and raw.
     No human has any "go out and kill an animal with one's bare hands and then start chewing on it instinct"; the whole Instincto theory is simply a lie when applied to animals.  
     We are told that we should eat that which smells and tastes good, and I agree; however, the fatal flaw in contrived Instincto flesh-eating becomes clearly evident when one realizes the obvious: one can NOT smell and/or taste raw animal flesh in an intact animal several yards away THROUGH ITS HAIR AND SKIN.
     Further, if you give an infant, who is still in touch with its instincts, a kitten and banana, it will play with the kitten and eat the banana, certainly not the opposite, as it would IF humans had any flesh-eating "instinct".

     GCB: "Cooked foods, on the contrary, contain refractory molecules that normally have no place in the digestive tract; the gastric mucus has to secrete an inordinate amount of gastric juices to handle the situation, and the stomach produces so much acid that acid belching results_otherwise, the stomach would turn against itself."
     GCB exhibits profound ignorance of simple digestive chemistry.  The gastric mucosa secretes the digestive chemicals.  Further, the stomach produces large amounts of acid only when the person mistakenly eats protein that is too concentrated to be digested properly.  Excessive digestive acid is produced only when far too much protein is eaten, such as raw animal flesh, eggs, and nuts/seeds; it is not a consequence of "cooked foods".  "Acid belching", whatever that is, does not prevent the stomach from "turning against itself", whatever that means.  The walls of the stomach are protected from proteolytic enzymes by a layer of mucus.

     GCB: "But, letís go back to our roebuck. To interpret those reactions that occurred the first time a raw food was eaten, there was only one possible explanation: The reaction was a clean-out. The cells, receiving for the first time the ďinitialĒ molecules that suited them, promptly cast off the old unserviceable molecules that they had been saddled with on traditional food; all these unwanted substances, released into the bloodstream, induced a kind of self-poisoning, with the same symptoms as extraneous poisoning_which state is typified by a feeling of nausea. More scientifically, I ought to be saying that the uptake of new molecules lowers the bodyís threshold of tolerance and it begins to flush out unwanted molecules it had put up with before."
     Why does GCB intentionally ignore the most obvious reason for the nausea and vomiting reactions the eating raw animal flesh produced; that of food poisoning, and that the human ape has no inherent physiology or biochemistry to consume raw animal flesh, so it is expelled to protect the body proper from being poisoned?  Nausea and vomiting are, indeed, instincts to protect the body.
     Detox or "clean out" proceeds on a continuing basis, 24 hours a day; it certainly does not require episodes of nausea and vomiting because the great majority of wastes are regularly excreted thorough the obvious channels: urine and feces.  Food poisoning, however, does produce nausea and vomiting.  
     Of course, the claim that raw animal flesh [in this case small European and Asiatic deer which most certainly do not exist in our natural tropical ecological niche] is "initial food" for our tropical ape species while simultaneously ignoring the blatant facts that we have absolutely no physiological or biochemical equipment to either catch, tear asunder, and successfully eat and digest, raw animal flesh is transparently false.  He also ignores the fact that the body does the biochemistry; the food, "new molecules" or not, has no ability to "flush out unwanted molecules it had put up with before".

     GCB: "Given appropriate conditions, your internal organs remain silent. One shouldnít feel any heaviness, queasiness, rumbling, or drowsiness during digestion."
     Yet, the nausea and vomiting of indigestible, putrefying animal flesh is welcomed as somehow beneficial.

     _How is it, then, that youíre not against eggs? Eggs are laid to turn into chicks.
     GCB: "Intelligence isnít necessary to find eggs in nature. All sorts of animals include eggs in their diet, i.e. field mice, squirrels, monkeys, etc. Our genetic code has had millions of years to adapt to them; whereas, to get milk, one has had to devise no end of contrivances. Nobody has ever seen a gorilla milk a buffalo in a primeval forest."
     One also does not see lots of eggs lying on the ground for the human to just find.  Buffalo live in grasslands, not primeval forests.
     However, this "intelligence isn't necessary" criteria is totally and conveniently abandoned when it comes to Instincto fish and flesh-eating, where the use of intelligence, i.e. tools -- knives, is absolutely necessary.  Instinctos do NOT outrun an animal or outswim a fish, and eat it whole and raw, with their natural equipment as ALL other carnivores, omnivores, or pescadores do.  This is a fundamental flaw in Instincto dogma.

     _That bamboozles your instincts. I get the message. But how can you uphold that meat was one of manís initial foods? Primates are declaredly vegetarians.
     GCB: "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 werenít assumed to be meat-eaters: That would have required conjuring them up eating raw meat given that they didnít 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.
     Humans are apes, not monkeys; the smaller primates do eat significant amounts of animal flesh due to their inherently higher metabolic turnover, the largest do not.  Further, flesh-eating among chimps and other apes is rare, nutritionally insignificant, and used for social/cultural purposes.  If it was a nutritional imperative, then all the adults would eat it all the time, however only fruit and leaves are eaten this regularly.

     _Had you initially banned eating meat?
     GCB: "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 doesnít 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."
      Is this not a clear admission that animal flesh is NOT a part of our evolutionary diet?  
     He admits that eating these "alien proteins is quite dangerous", yet encourages people to consume them in spite of this warning, even when they vomit them up in self-defense.  GCB's claim: "I always loved formal logic." is again seen to be false, as he readily abandons logic to support the consumption of animal proteins and fats.  He then goes on to admit "man...started eating meat without keeping to the laws of instinct"; thus, he once again, admits that eating animals is NOT "keeping to the laws of instinct"!  The result is claimed to be "devastation, the extent of which no one can as yet accurately assess".  I'd claim the extent is already accurately assessed by the huge "health care" costs and pandemic suffering of "degenerative diseases" and shortened lifespans.

     GCB: "One thing is for sure: Itís not by viewing the issue ideologically or hot-headedly that weíll 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..."
     We are apes, not monkeys.  IF GCB actually had respect for the "facts", he would conclude from them that chimp flesh-eating is rare, used for social/cultural purposes, and is nutritionally insignificant for the whole troop.

     GCB: "True enough, thereís something shocking about killing anything. It jars with our concepts of spirituality.
      Could that be a manifestation of our anti-instinct against killing animals with our bare hands and eating them raw and whole??  Even the most committed Instincto does not eat his animals as ALL natural flesh-eaters do; they conveniently distance themselves from the inherent horror of their actions by using knives instead of their teeth.  Predictably, GCB ignores our nonviolent instincts to support flesh-eating.

     GCB: "Mind you, Hitler and his henchmen were card-carrying vegetarians. But they didnít shrink from mass murder. Perhaps one day neurophysiological disorders will be meaningfully correlated with adulterated foods and the rise of major political trends."
     The facts, however, demonstrate the opposite.  Anxiety and depression is, however, associated with the consumption of animal protein/fats.

     GCB: "Thatís one of the battle cries of vegetarianism. One is rightly told that one is eating ďcarrion.Ē
     Carrion: The dead and putrefying body or flesh of an animal; flesh so corrupted as to be unfit for food. At least he is now admitting it!  Further, you will see that he recommends intentionally letting the raw flesh putrefy before eating it!!

     GCB: "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 fact, the chemical composition of all animal flesh is quite similar, given the close genetic relationship between all animals and the evolutionary claim that all animals evolved from a common ancestor.  Yes, eating animal flesh is functionally and chemically equivalent to cannibalism.

     GCB: "In actual fact, meat only looks dead; itís teeming with life. Think of all the live yeasts thriving on it.
     Yes, the meat itself is quite dead, the cells are not receiving any nutrition, and cellular wastes are not being removed by blood flow, therefore each individual cell dies a horrible death caused by simultaneous starvation and internal buildup of toxic wastes -- those wastes would result in feces and urine if the cell were to live.  Thus, "meat" and "fish" contain concentrated urine and fecal material.  In addition, the animal knows it is being killed and generates "flight or fight hormones" that affect the human so foolish as to consume same.  At death, cells start decomposing in preparation for the recycling of their chemicals, so these decomposition products, certainly not intended for human consumption, are unavoidable contaminants in dead animal flesh.  And don't forget the bacterial contamination and parasites.  Yes, dead meat is teeming with other life, the function of which is recycling the chemicals, NOT providing human nutrition.  In the real world, a dead carcass is quickly inoculated with fly eggs, which quickly hatch into maggots that consume the corpse; should we eat the maggots simply because, as GCB states, they are "teeming with life"?

     GCB: "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 isnít a carnivorous animal either. Instincts clearly donít allow us to eat fresh meat; an animal thatís been recently slain gives off an extremely disgusting smell. Iím not in favor of meat; the less one eats of it, the better one feels in every way 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.
     Another interesting exercise in illogic and self-contradiction.  
     Yes, the offensive, bacterially-produced amine-based odors of a putrefying corpse are clear indications that we are not carrion-eaters, as some armchair anthropologists foolishly claim.  The internal putrefaction of undigested animal protein is a similar process that creates the offensive fecal, urine, menstrual, and body odors of the human flesh-eater.  
     GCB then admits "Man isn't a carnivorous animal either. Instincts clearly donít allow us to eat fresh meat; an animal thatís been recently slain gives off an extremely disgusting smell"; well, there's the instinctive evidence that clearly proves we are NOT flesh-eaters, but let's see the perversion of logic that allows GCB to personally consume, and recommend the consumption of, raw animal flesh.
     GCB says: "Iím not in favor of meat; the less one eats of it, the better one feels in every way"; isn't that conclusive instinctive and experiential evidence against human flesh-eating?
     Admitting that humans are NOT natural flesh-eaters, he then goes on to make up a totally irrational excuse for eating it: "meat can prove extremely useful therapeutically".  This is totally insane, and based on the false, and unsupportable, assumption that somehow the body 'needs' specific chemicals when it is not well, that it doesn't need when it is well -- that, somehow, there are specific biochemical pathways not used when well, yet demand a repulsive, clearly counter-instinctive non-food item when not well.  This is the same corrupt, deadly, and absolutely unproven philosophy supporting the ingestion of poisonous substances by the sick person as seen in the failed "medical systems": allopathy, homeopathy, and herbalism.  Clearly, when a person is suffering from a body load of toxic substances created by the ingestion of an improper cultural diet, the response should be consuming less toxic substances, certainly not more, as GCB and conventional "medical systems" demand.

     GCB: "Of course, taste alone isnít enough to prove that meat is beneficial to us. We have to try and see the long-term effects of meat on human health. With hindsight, I have the feeling that results, on the whole, have been quite encouraging_provided one respects instinctive ďcuesĒ and that one avoids eating meat too frequently with other foods."
     Another fatal self-contradiction from the one who "always loved formal logic"; the most fundamental tenet of Instinctotherapy is that "initial" foods always smell and taste best.  How can one eat a beneficial food "too frequently"; can one eat mangos too frequently?
     Note, GCB's last phrase completely contradicts the above-recommended meal: "Dinner may have four or five sequences : (1) animal proteins, (2) vegetables and sprouted cereals, (3) fresh fruits if desired, (4) nuts and oil-bearing seeds, and finally (5) dried fruits and honey."

     GCB: "With our method, weíve 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. 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. Itís not by chance if butchers allow meat to stand for a few weeks before selling it."
      Now, it gets really bizarre.  Previously admitting "Instincts clearly donít allow us to eat fresh meat; an animal thatís been recently slain gives off an extremely disgusting smell.", we find that meat gets yet another special exemption from the principles of logic, Instinctotherapy, in addition to normal hygienic practices, and he recommends letting the meat putrefy considerably "out in the open" at room temperature, for a "few weeks" so the contaminating bacteria thrive and multiply without bounds, prior to consuming it. Apparently, these pathological, corpse-eating bacteria and their toxic waste products, in addition to the rotting meat itself, is the true source of the "good" taste so produced?
     In contradiction to GCB's fantasy, we do not instinctually let fruits or vegetables sit out in the open until they rot prior to consuming them.
     There is no "intermediate" class of animals between carnivore and scavenger.

     GCB: "I do admit, however, that, in practice, carnivorous animals have been superseded by butchers."
     The felines, canines, reptiles, amphibians, etc. would be shocked to learn they have been "superseded".

     GCB: "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."
      Yet, GCB can present NO facts to support his case, nor logic, either.  He previously admitted that humans are not flesh-eaters.  His boundless capacity for self-contradiction far exceeds his "love" for "formal logic".

     GCB: "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."
     But, he previously admitted that humans are not natural flesh-eaters and that flesh is repulsive, has a "disgusting smell", and produces vomiting.

     GCB: "Tigers donít 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 beingís muscles reek_not to mention their guts!"
     Tigers, as all wild animals, tend to avoid humans and feed on their natural prey.  If a tiger gets old and/or crippled, it may learn that humans are very slow and easy to catch, and they conveniently live in the same place, rather than continually moving like most animals.  His attempt at mind-reading tigers is as unsupportable as his claim to "love" logic.

     GCB: "All in all, it seems to me that by prohibiting animal protein, one is going against the laws of nature."
     Yet, where are these "laws of nature" when he has repeatedly admitted humans are not natural flesh-eaters, flesh smells repulsive, produces nausea and vomiting, needs knives, etc.?

     GCB: "...bow and arrow, a gun, or a knife. Those weapons are intelligent contrivances as well that werenít part of the ďinitialĒ background."
     GCB disqualifies animal milk as an "initial food" because intelligence must be used to gather it.  Here, he admits that "intelligent contrivances"; specifically killing weapons and knives are NOT allowed to be used in preparing the Instincto meal, yet how do his fleshy animals meet their deaths and land on his plate, neatly filleted?  They are killed by weapons and cut up by knives!  Again, proof that animals are NOT "initial food".

     GCB: "Be careful, youíre lapsing into philosophy. Itís not because I need some contrivance to capture or kill an animal that its meat wonít constitute an ďinitialĒ food as far as my metabolism is concerned.
     Yet, he disqualifies animal milk because it requires "intelligence" to gather and consume.  In the previous paragraph, he admitted that "intelligent contrivances" disqualified any 'food' that required them.  GCB is a master at self-contradiction.

     GCB: "Do we know anything about the running techniques of our pre-intelligent ancestors, or what their strength was based on, "
     We know they were not fleet of foot enough to run down, catch, kill with their bare hands, and eat with their unaided teeth, any game.

     GCB: "...if not the fact that they used stones, sticks, and tricks as some predators do?"      Some carnivores use "stones and sticks"??  Which ones?  He previously disqualified 'foods' that require intelligence to obtain as not "initial".

     GCB: "We have no training in the matter, our bodies have been built up on the basis of degenerate food; we canít take ourselves as a reference.  Maybe our physical strength has declined because our intelligence has taken over: skulduggery has overtaken strength.
     Yet, we can use the other apes as a reference, and they do not consume flesh for nutritional purposes.  When it comes to Instincto flesh-eating, skullduggery, and self-contradiction, has indeed overtaken logic, facts, and intelligent analysis.

     GCB: "To reiterate what Iíve 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?"
     Actually, we do not, and GCB presents no evidence to the contrary.

     GCB: "Human canines have what it takes, and to spare, to bite into a whole leg of lamb or into a chicken drumstick."
     Human "canines" are canine in name only, and this is a severe misnomer.  Looking at the canine teeth in the canines, we see a totally different shape, and different function.  We also see side teeth adapted for shearing flesh, and NO such teeth occur in the human.  Instinctos do not chew chunks of flesh off a whole leg of lamb, GCB frequently references "strips" of flesh, meaning preparation with knives.  They do NOT get to their flesh by chewing through the fur and hide as real carnivores do.

     GCB: "Why should there be any difference between one meat and another?"
     There is probably very little difference, chemically; thus the parallel with cannibalism.

     GCB: "It appears that we are even more suited for the flesh of fowl than that of mammals_possibly because itís easier to find injured birds in nature."
     Why would humans get to these mythical injured birds first?  How many injured birds have you ever seen while walking in the woods?

     GCB: "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, youíll see all your preconceptions disappear into thin air."
     Does GCB and the Instinctos chew through the feathers as all the real carnivores do, or do they skin it and slice it with knives?  Again, the "preconception" of letting the flesh putrefy and bacteria accumulate before eating, as NO other animal does, is recommended.

     GCB: "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."
     Here, the false claim is made that everything is perfectly digested.  If that were true, there would be no food poisoning and no diet-induced disease.

     GCB: "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."
     A perfect analysis of the Instincto dogma.

     GCB: "In point of fact, the issue of meat-eating would have never arisen, had it not been for cooking."
     Another admission that animal flesh is not "initial food".  So, raw flesh is seen to be a "therapy" to counter the effects of (cooked) flesh that never should have been eaten?  Bizarre.

     GCB: "If, like our fellow primates, we went in for insects a little more, we might be able to dispense with meat."
     Chimp insect-eating is nutritionally insignificant.

     GCB: "After all, we must be better adapted to eating insects than elephant meat."
     Be my guest, but I'll pass.

     GCB: "Iím not against contrivances, so long as they are genuinely ingenious."
     Wonderful example of a self-serving, self-contradiction to support his flesh-eating.  We were previously told, in a dodge necessary to support egg-eating: "Intelligence isnít necessary to find eggs in nature."  So, one minute we are supposed to eat "initial foods"; those that require no preparation, and now, tools, such as knives which Instinctos need to hack up their corpses, are acceptable.
     Elsewhere, we are told: "Maybe our physical strength has declined because our intelligence has taken over: skulduggery has overtaken strength."  This equates intelligence and tool use with the unacceptable, such as agriculture, cooking, and fish nets.  Uniformly, Instincto theory goes out the window when it is time to eat intentionally putrefying, bacterially-contaminated, animal parts.
     Previously, "...whereas, to get milk, one has had to devise no end of contrivances. Nobody has ever seen a gorilla milk a buffalo in a primeval forest."  Similarly, nobody has ever seen a gorilla use a gun to kill "game", nor a knife to cut meat or fish.
     So, depending on the particular dogma of the moment, "contrivances" are either rejected or accepted.  GCB is a master of self-contradiction, and this alone completely negates Instincto theory.

     GCB fed his newborn, even before it had its first collostrum or any nursing at all: banana, papaya, avocado mango, and raw tuna, all in one meal!  I wonder if chimps would be so irrational?  It would seem to be counter-instinctive to feed an infant solid food before it had teeth to deal with it; it would seem rational to feed breast milk up to that point.  And HOW "instinctive" is feeding raw tuna, an ocean fish, to a suckling ape that lives in the jungle and not in the ocean?

     GCB: "Commerically sold meat is unfortunately very rarely palatable to an instincto's taste buds."
     Yet, putrefying flesh, left to rot at room temperature and the resulting toxic substances and bacterial contamination is?  Remember how cooking and spices caused perverted tastes that led the cooked-fooder astray; how is this intentional perversion of the "repulsive" taste of raw flesh any different?

     GCB: "On first showing, I think we'd come out on top, especially in the realm of proteins, where the biggest threat of shortage looms large.
     There is no threat of protein shortage.

     GCB: "Huge surfaces of land could be salvaged for breeding, since all kinds of animals can very well be left to graze under trees: chickens, sheep, pigs, geese, rabbits, and even cattle as was common in orchards of former times."
      The conversion efficiency from plant protein to animal protein is about 5-10%, so converting plant protein into animal protein throws 90-95% of it away.

     GCB: "I have seen a profound change at work in myself and in everyone who has taken up an "initial" diet; love of the fruit revives a love of life. One feels an upsurge of respect for natural values. Cutting a tree feels like inflicting a wound; bulldozers and combine harvesters take on the appearance of devilish fiends. If everyone could find within themselves a little more sensitivity for and thoughtfulness towards nature, I don't believe that the planet would be marred the way it is at present.
      Apparently his "love of life" does not extend to the animals he kills and eats?

     GCB: "Of course; the problem of allergies to milk is well known, especially in the case of babies. Those allergies don't necessarily last very long. After some time, the body gives up reacting. The immune system enters a state known to specialists as a state of "breach of immunological surveillance." That's the time when mothers jump for joy proclaiming: "Ah, now, my baby is at last getting used to milk." In fact, that's when danger shows up: The body gives up defending itself, and from then on, the foreign protein can infiltrate through and through without being prevented by anything. It can dissolve in fat, stick to cell membranes, enter the plasma, and go and disrupt DNA in the nucleus."
     Mysteriously, GCB does not recognize that exactly this process is that which allows the Instincto to overcome his initial "revulsion", nausea, and vomiting of animal flesh.

     GCB: "The aim is simply to do away with an artifice likely to play instinctive mechanisms foul or set up metabolic puzzles."
     The necessary artifices of guns, knives, and the intentionally putrefying of flesh to overcome the instinctive "revulsion" before eating, are those which make Instincto flesh eating possible.

     GCB: "Minute amounts of non-conformable substances are enough to induce serious symptoms."
     Yet, he advises eating major amounts of them in the form of rotting flesh and eggs.

     GCB: "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."
     Guns, knives, and intentional putrefaction of one's food before eating is obviously quite different than food "directly given by nature" as humans could "obtain it in its natural habitat".



Home page