This will make your day -

Investigating Raw Vegan and Other Diet Gurus:
Can You Trust Them?

[www.beyondveg.com]

Hey KidRaw,

Here are a couple of snippets from my file on tom billings and beyondveg.com that I think you might appreciate - this is, of course, in reference to a post in another forum. If I have time latter, I’ll share my File Preview from this file.

[www.living-foods.com]
Laurie Forti responding to Jeff N.
Date: 03-20-00 10:35

…

> ...the beyondveg.com site...

This site is run by a very confused individual, who, in addition to not being able to support his beliefs with facts or logic when challenged, and who uses ad hominem attacks when in that position, also claims to be able to read other people's minds through his modem. No doubt, he maintains that level of credibility and intellectual integrity on the site.

He also stole the title, Beyond Vegetarianism, from my article of the same name that predated his site by almost a decade.

Laurie
[www.living-foods.com]

In the next article, be sure to look at #2)!!!

Beyond Polemics
J S Coleman [John Coleman]
Bionomic Nutrition Forum, 2001
"Interpretation of our past runs the constant risk of degenerating into mere 'paleopoetry' stories that we spin today, stimulated by a few bits of fossil bone, and expressing like Rohrschach tests our own personal prejudices, but devoid of any claim to validity about the past."
The Rise And Fall of The Third Chimpanzee, Jared Diamond, p.70, Vintage Science
"Criticism should not be querulous and wasting, all knife and rootpuller, but guiding, instructive, inspiring."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Introduction
The 'Beyond Veg' web site purports to be a thorough and scientific challenge to vegetarianism based on hard scientific facts and experiential evidence (anecdotes). It attempts to use paleontology, primatological evidence, evolutionary biology and comparative anatomy to rubbish the naturalistic vegetarian hypothesis. This article is intended not only to counter many of the claims of the authors of 'Beyond Veg', but also to reveal the authors terribly erroneous and unscholarly approach to science in pursuit of their dietary dogma.
Basic errors in logic and philosophy are dealt with in the first section and in the second section, an in-depth analysis of some of the more complex issues is presented.
Errors of logic
1) Argumentum ad Novitatem 1 of 10
- age of scientific information does not invalidate
* e.g. "Mountain gorillas are strict vegans; Schaller [1963](a by now outdated source of information on this particular point)"
* e.g. Stevens and Hume [1995] cite "dated" references
The claim that the citation/evidence is "outdated" is not supported by any authoritative opinion. What van Lawick and Goodall observed was "omnivorous" behaviour, but even so, Stevens and Hume stated that the chimpanzee is generally a strict herbivore.
Scientific theory/evidence does not come with a sell by date, it has to be properly disproved or discredited. Stevens and Hume is a modern and authoritative text, and the authors have excellent credentials, unlike the authors of 'Beyond Veg'. As with chimpanzees, rabbits and many other animals classified as herbivores, they sometimes eat animal matter. This is sometimes called 'opportunistic feeding' when it is not very prolific, but even so, rabbits are classed as herbivores.
2) Argumentum ad hominem
- assaulting the person, and not the subject matter
* e.g. because he says his detractors are "extreme", "dietary racists" (etc.)
* e.g. his detractors made a point ". . . often stated in a highly emotional manner."
But, how does one detect ones detractor's emotions via their written word? Of course, one does not; we infer other people's emotions, sometimes erroneously, ourselves. Anyway, are the detractors really so emotionally charged, and even so, this does not make their claims invalid, nor warrant assaulting them as part of supposedly scientific discourse.
3) Argumentum ad ignorantiam
- because we don't know about something, it does not exist
* e.g. "There is no such thing as a veg*n gatherer tribe"
But maybe there was and we never knew about it! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
4) Argumentum ad nauseam
- the size and amount of evidence presented does not reflect validity
Why isn't 'Beyond Veg' short and specific? If any authority working in the anthropological or biological fields has stated that humans are "omnivorous" that need to eat animal matter, why not just cite them, just show us the evidence and be done? Instead we see a long-winded and repetitive mess.
5) Audiatur et altera pars
- lack of supporting evidence
Countless of the claims of Beyond Veg are unsupported by scientific evidence, they are solely the often false and bizarre, beliefs of the authors.
* e.g. "Plant foods available in evolution were poor zinc and iron sources"
The supporting evidence from millions of years of virtually unknown plant biology is?
Some plant foods, such as peanuts, are excellent sources of nearly all the essential minerals, and this includes iron and zinc. According to Leonard Mervyn (B.Sc., Ph.D., C.Chem, F.R.S.C) in 'Thorsons Complete Guide To Vitamins and Minerals', soft fruits "all supply good dietary intakes of potassium, calcium, phosphorus and iron."
The mineral content of plant foods depends mainly on soil content and condition. According to Dr. Duke's Phytochemical and Ethnobotanical Databases, Lettuce Leaf (Lactuca sativa L.) contains between 27 and 974 ppm (i.e. max. about 0.1 grams per 100 grams) of zinc. The RDI for zinc is 15 to 20 milligrams, thus 100 grams of best (zinc rich) lettuce provides nearly 5 times the RDI!
If modern plant foods can provide nutrition sufficiency, why not ancient ones?
6) Bifurcation
- presenting two options when more may be available
* e.g. because ". . . the [frugivorous human] individual would eventually die from the toxic effects of the by-products of protein digestion . . . and be less likely to reproduce"
The meat eating frugivorous human does not have to live/die, they might just be slightly ill, and not to a sufficient level to significantly affect reproductive fitness! Of course, is it perfectly possible that meat eating/cooked food eating humans preferentially survived because they were better nourished in a harsh environment, but not necessarily because of any adaptation. Their survival habits would have been culturally transmitted, perhaps long beyond their initial advantage.
7) Non sequitur (with unstated inference)
- the conclusion does not follow from the observations
* e.g. "extremes are rare in nature"
Is the intended inference that because anteaters like the aard-vark, echidna and pangolin eat an "extreme" (narrow/monophageous) diet, they are somehow incorrect? Do anteaters need to be more omnivorous and eat some plant matter, and are koala diets meat deficient? Variation is the normal in nature, and what is common or rare is irrelevant in establishing the correct diet of an individual species. Are we also to believe that because the chimps at Gombe eat insects, all chimps eat insects? Or, that because some gorillas eat insects and invertebrates, all gorillas do?
* e.g. ". . . their [human] guts have the dimensions of a (faunivore) carnivore but the taeniae, haustra and semi-lunar folds are characteristic of folivores".
From this it is falsely claimed that ". . . Chivers prefers the term faunivore to indicate that humans are adapted to a diet that includes animal foods (fauna)." Chivers states that the gut dimensions of humans are by some abstract measure, similar to carnivores. Yet the stronger structural evidence, haustra, shows herbivorous adaptations. Chivers is only discussing gut morphology in isolation, and never "classes humans as faunivores". The observation does not disprove the hypothesis that humans are strict herbivore- frugivores. Carnivore dimensioned guts might also be a good thing to digest fruit.
* e.g. ". . . existence of intestinal receptors for the specific absorption of heme iron is strong evidence of adaptation to animal foods in the diet"
These receptors might also serve well to soak up an animals own heme iron, leaking out as a result of intestinal injury, and thus prevent bacterial infection. The digestive system of a wild animal may need to take some abuse. The cell receptors of any animal cell, are quite likely to be able to take up similar chemicals found in other animal tissues - but this does not mean they are supposed to eat them.
* e.g. ". . the lack of reliable (year-round) plant sources [of B12] suggests evolutionary adaptation to animal foods in the human diet."
How is that? First of all, plant foods are by no means devoid of vitamin B12. They usually contain pink pigmented facultative methylotrophs, bacteria that make vitamin B12, as well as being able to take it up from suitable soil. I had a box of Chilean raspberries, and the label claims that they provide 30% of the RDA of vitamin B12 per 100 grams. While there seems to be little evidence that modern humans can obtain their own supply via bacteria in the gut, this does not prove that our ancestors were similarly limited. Because B12 can be stored in the liver and last for 10 to 20 years, there is no need for a year-round supply. Indeed such an adaptation suggests an animal that can do without the vitamin for extended periods, much as the camel can store water in its blood, and so manage without it for a long time. A regular flesh eater would have no need of such adaptations.
* e.g. "Dietary categories are not strict in nature"
But it does not follow from this that all animals are omnivorous. Monophages such as the anteaters and the koala do exist.
8) misplaced causation
e.g. Because (he alleges) most vegan raw diets fail, then the vegan raw diet causes malnutrition, but no attempt is made to examine socio-economic factors, the primary factor in nutritional status of human populations (how many raw food eaters are wealthy enough to eat well at all?)
9) omissions
As any PR hack knows, the best way of presenting your case in a positive light is to omit any contradicting facts. (see the second section for other major omissions)
* e.g. "Plant foods are poor sources of EFAs"
Peanuts (and some other seeds/legumes/nuts) are 15% or more EFA, and we only require a few grams of EFA per day. Plant foods are the richest sources of EFAs, although they do not provide EPA and DHA. In the normal healthy cells of most populations, EPA and DHA can be manufactured from alpha-linolenic acid (LNA), which is found abundantly in plant seed oils. However some degenerative conditions may impair our ability to synthesize sufficient EPA and DHA from LNA. Certain populations and a few individuals are also affected by potentially deleterious mutations that impair the ability of their cells to synthesize EPA and DHA from LNA, but these tend to occur in traditional peoples who have depended on fish as a staple in their diets. According to Udo Erasmus, in his book 'Fats that Heal Fats that Kill', this affects between 2% and 10% of these populations involved. These people have to obtain preformed EPA and DHA in their diet. While fish manufacture EPA and DHA from LNA, they obtain most of it preformed from brown and red algae (Erasmus, op. cit., p.259).
10) contradictions
e.g. How can it be simultaneously claimed that "The morphology of the human gut does not correspond to that expected for a nearly 100%-fruit frugivore. . .", while at the same time maintaining that examples of animals eating such diets do not exist, and that all other apes eat leaves or animal products? Logically, if humans were uniquely adapted to a fruit only diet, then we would expect only them to have the unique anatomy for such a diet. And, the absence of any other examples would no more disprove the human-frugivore hypothesis, than singular case of the eucalyptus eating koala would be proven dietarily wrong, for its crime of being dietarily unique.
JR’s summary from above:
Errors of logic
1) - age of scientific information does not invalidate - outdated source of information - the citation/evidence is "outdated"
Scientific theory/evidence does not come with a sell by date, it has to be properly disproved or discredited.
2) - assaulting the person, and not the subject matter
3) - because we don't know about something, it does not exist Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
4) - the size and amount of evidence presented does not reflect validity Why isn't 'Beyond Veg' short and specific? 5) - lack of supporting evidence
6) - presenting two options when more may be available
7) - the conclusion does not follow from the observations
8) misplaced causation
9) omissions
10) contradictions
Errors in philosophy
1) confusing Lamarkism with Darwinism/does not understand evolution
* e.g. ". . .Such an attitude also reflects misunderstanding and ignorance of how evolution works. . . Once meat eating becomes a part of the long-term environment, then evolutionary selective pressure will favour genes that are best adapted to that environment. . . In the long term, genetic adaptation to such a diet, by evolution, is the inevitable result"
This is actually a restatement of Lamarks invalid second postulate about perceived needs, but unfortunately genes don't provide for any perceived needs. We know that about 99% of the species that ever lived are now extinct! Organisms don't just handily "adapt" to newer environments when they pop up - there is no reason to accept that because meat is eaten, favourable genes must exist to adapt. So, 'Beyond Veg' not only misunderstands a crucial aspect of evolution, it even puts invalid Lamarkism in its place!
* e.g. ". . . survival of the fittest is really a broad-based, long-term (multi-generational)proposition."
This may be generally true, but it is not always the case. Sometimes a sudden environmental change can immediately remove genes from the pool.
2) Platonism
Platonism makes the error of suggesting that there are ideal forms ("essence" which are at the heart of complex systems. To suggest that because most apes eat some animal matter, and therefore apes are essentially "omnivorous", and then to take this abstract category and imply that humans should also be "omnivorous" to fit the normal, is an invalid platonic proposition. There is no average or ideal ape diet, other than in the ideas people have. This problem, which is often seen in biology, is explained in detail at the beginning of the next section. Examples are given below in the final sub-section The Paleopoetry Diet.
3) reification
Categories and averages are abstract concepts, they help us to think about things, but they do not describe any biological reality. When, for example, we create the abstract concept of intelligence to create a property reflecting certain kinds of intellectual performance, it does not follow that there is such a thing as intelligence. Instead many complex and dynamic processes influence the abstract property we are attempting to measure and call intelligence. Similarly a taxa organises organisms according to their perceived relatedness, not their real relatedness.
How scientific is comparative biology?
Before any meaningful debate can begin we need to understand the underlying philosophy of comparative anatomy. Is this paradigm scientifically acceptable? We note that the biological sciences are not exact empirical sciences -- they remain primarily descriptive, rather than experimental sciences. Classically, until the evolutionary theory and discovery of genes, fairly recently, the biological sciences have lacked an under-pinning theory (or "central dogma" and something to measure precisely. Both these problems have now been better addressed, although fairly late in comparison to the other hard sciences. With this knowledge, we can place the biological disciplines into modern and classical philosophies. The neo-Darwinian disciplines, such as genetics and molecular biology represent the new fields of biology, and the taxonomic and descriptive fields are representative of the classical biological fields of study.
The comparative fields of biology merge together both the modern Darwinian philosophy, with the classic platonic philosophy. As Dr. Chivers points out himself, citing Plato in Gordon et al. 1972, Plato clearly understood the limitations of his philosophy; "A cautious man should above all be on his guard for resemblances: they are a very slippery sort of thing". (1)
The comparative fields of biology have then, a tenancy to classify (i.e. group) characteristics, and discuss their similarities and differences, together with study of their adaptive functions. These two philosophies are at odds with each other as Stephen Jay Gould points out in his book 'Life's Grandeur' (2). The platonic philosophy presumes to create abstract concepts, or ideal models, and then fit real characteristics into these abstractions, with poor fits presumed to be badly fitting, or somehow non-ideal or in error. In contrast, Darwinian philosophy has no problem with dealing in and accepting variety as the normal. Gould (p. 40, op. cit.) states that "we are still suffering from a legacy as old as Plato, a tenancy to abstract a single ideal or averages the "essence" of a system, and to devalue or ignore variation. . ." and that "In Darwin's post-Platonic world, variation stands as the fundamental reality and calculated averages become abstractions."
To summarise then, attempts to classify things according to idealised and abstract categories, such as dietary niches (e.g. "omnivorism", are an ill conceived approach to achieving greater understanding of the biological realities. We must accept that any fit to such abstract groupings satisfies our desire to classify, rather than to explain. The practical ramifications become very serious when we realise that many species can be classified together, but their diets are wholly inappropriate for each other. For example, both koalas and cattle are strict herbivores, but their diets are unsuitable for each other. On the other hand rabbits and cattle are both herbivores with more compatible diets. Such apparently contradictory variation is wholly acceptable to Darwinian philosophy, but looks confusing with the platonic ideological system. When classifying digestive/dietary adaptations, we need to be sure that these are based on actual observations of feeding patterns and material eaten, and not upon purely abstract concepts - we want the numbers. We must ensure that taxonomic grouping is accurately reflective of diet. In addition we must also not repeat the same classification errors when dealing with food groups. We must also remember that one particular anatomical form can serve many different functions across species.
These platonic limitations have been identified and discussed extensively by Chivers et al., in "The Digestive System In Mammals" , and also earlier in "Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates"(3). Indeed, it is recognition of these problems that has inspired these scientists to develop comparative physiology towards an acceptable scientific discipline.
"Categorizing always includes a great danger because it can narrow thoughts and neglect the view to the basis of data used and required for the categories."
Paul Winkler, Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates, p. 161
What about "Omnivorism"
In both the works of Chivers, previously cited, his views on the old dietary category of "omnivorism" are clearly expressed along with his reasons. These are based upon material facts. He states that:
"Because, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used term 'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of food processing and cookery." (4)
Chivers et al. also present graphical presentations of primate diets that make it quite clear that primates are not broadly generalised feeders such as the term "omnivore" suggests. They either prefer to eat fruits and animal matter in the case of smaller primates, or mainly fruit and leaf matter in the case of larger primates. The term omnivore is not really acceptable in this scientific debate, because it is not dietarily descriptive. This is clearly the view of authoritative scientists in the field of primatology, because they frequently place double quotation marks around the term omnivore when it is used. In this way they are reflecting the extra-scientific use of the term. It seems that the terms was probably coined before any useful analysis of diet had been made, because as Chivers says (The Digestive System In Mammals p.4); "The concept of omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves." In short, omnivorism is biologically impossible to do effectively under natural conditions -- only the food processing techniques of man have created such possibilities.
Although some of Chivers own research points towards human gut morphology as being comparable to that of a faunivorous species, he is not so bold as to actually state that humans are faunivores.
It is clear that his findings are inconclusive as he states in 'The Cambridge Encyclopedia Of Human Evolution' (4), "Humans are on the inner edge of the faunivore cluster, showing the distinctive adaptations of their guts for meat-eating, or for some other rapidly digested foods, in contrast to the frugivorous apes". This statement suggests that the anatomical form or the digestive system reflects the properties of the food, and not its biological origin. While it is clear that the human digestive system differs anatomically to those of other frugivorous primates, it is accepted that the adaptation is for rapidly digested food, which may be flesh, OR some other rapidly digested foods. We must therefore have more anatomical evidence to support the hypothesis of humans having a flesh eating adaptation. Furthermore, humans are on the edge of the faunivore grouping, and not the centre, so the result is all the more contestable.
Of course, measuring and comparing the different surface areas of parts of the digestive system is only one way of comparing dietary adaptations. One needs also to consider the structure of the digestive system, to look at the teeth, and also the chemistry of digestion.
Let us now look at that classic bone of contention that proud meat-eaters point to, the human canine tooth. According to Glenn C. Conroy in 'Primate Evolution', page 380 to 381, ape and human teeth and mouths are distinctly different. Apes have a rectangular dental arch shape, while humans have a parabolic shape, but perhaps more significantly humans have "Incisiform" canines, whereas ape canines are described as "Stout, large, projecting". Indeed, incisiform canine teeth like the humans, are totally unique amongst higher primates. Enlarged spatulate incisors are recognised as an adaptation for tough foods and to fruit eating. Humans are not the same as apes, but just like them in so many ways.
If we accept the suggestion that humans evolved from some ape-like proto human ancestor with large protruding canines, that were probably pointed, we must ask what diet promoted the development of the well enamelled incisiform canine to mimic that of the other incisors, even though the underlying dentine structure is still pointy? An additional incisor would be most advantageous to a fruit-eating primate, one that must have so depended on fruit consumption, that even the small addition of an extra pseudo-incisor conferred a selective advantage. This dependence may have been because the proto hominid had a diet based highly, or perhaps wholly on fruit (or fruit like food), or because at some critical time, only fruits were available to eat for much of the preceding period.
Other animals having incisiform canines include sheep, elk, bison, caribou and cattle, where they use them to deal with fibrous vegetation. Amongst primates, incisiform canines are found in Lemurs, the larger of which eat herbivore-frugivore diets, although some species do include insects. By omitting crucial anatomical evidence of humanities frugivorous specialisations, it becomes easier to believe incorrectly, in an "omnivore" adaptation. The earliest hominid to have a canine that is between the primitive ape form, and the incisiform modern human form is Ardipithecus ramidis. This animal, which may have lived some 5 million years ago, is claimed to have a skull with features similar to a chimp, but teeth more like a human.
The term "omnivore" is in fact a misnomer, as Suzanne Ripley reports in her chapter of 'Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates', page 33;
"Insofar as frugivores must look beyond fruits (their energy source) to animals or leaves for protein, they are generalised feeders, sometimes called "omnivores", albeit inaccurately, (Chivers and Hladick, 1980)."
Ripley omits to mention nuts and seeds as potential primate protein sources.
Furthermore, we must remind ourselves that the above rules may not apply to humans who are different from other primates, so that the generalisations made about frugivores may not apply to us. We must be reminded that variation is the rule in evolution. No other primate uses bipedal locomotion as much as humans do, but it is absurd to suggest that we are somehow incorrect to walk bipedally. Ripley (op. cit.) also categorises strictly frugivorous monkeys, partly carnivorous chimpanzees and hunter-gatherer humans, under the single banner of "frugivores". (p.40)
Ripley classes hominids as "Frugivore-macrofaunivores", and alleges that our increase in body size over that of other primate frugivores is possible because of the inclusion of animal matter in the diet. This is quite possible, but there may be other explanations. For example, on page 54 (op. cit.) she suggests that chimpanzees achieved an increase in body size by utilising "hard-shelled" nuts in addition to termites -- insectivorous primates are smaller than chimpanzees. Plant, as well as animal foods, can provide abundant levels of fats and proteins.
Greater protein and fat intake can be achieved without using animal matter in the diet, by including young leaves or seeds, and these may be in the fruit, or as separate items such as sprouts, nuts or grains. Sweet leguminous fruits also yield sufficient protein content to satisfy human requirements. In addition, without taking relative rates of digestion into account, comparison by nutritional content alone is misleading. Human requirements for protein and lipids are in any case easy to meet on a plant based diet - there is no shortage of people now, who only eat plant foods.

Do all primates eat animal matter?
The answer may be yes, and this may even be true for all mammals (humans included), because it is virtually impossible, even with food processing technology to remove insect matter from natural food sources. Even sleeping humans who breathe through their mouths probably ingest impressive numbers of bed lice. But this line of debate risks entering into the reductio ad absurdum posturing. Clearly any meaningful debate on the issue needs to identify at what level of ingestion, insect matter is a useful part of the diet, and at what level it is insignificant. In addition, the presence of parasitic or symbiotic animal life in digestive system also means that many mammals are receiving some "animal" form of nutrition.
Unless sprayed, most grain foods will contain some weevils, in addition small mammals fall into the harvesting equipment or are killed in stores or processing plants, and thus very small amounts of animal matter are found even in bread, and probably more so if the grain is more naturally produced. Even so, people who eat these foods can still claim to be "vegetarian", though it is inaccurate to suggest that such a the diet is free of all animal tissue. The point is that they did not intend to eat the animal matter, and it was not practical to remove it. The same might be said of gorillas and their diets, although we might suggest that they are not motivated by intent to avoid eating animals, but rather they have no intention to do otherwise.
Vegetarians have been criticised for abusing scientific sources in claiming that the gorillas a vegetarian. But what else are we to make of statements such as "The gorilla is a strict vegetarian. . ." from Bradley, 1922, quoted in 'Apes of the World', page 55. And what of Yerkes and Yerkes (1929) conclusion that "apes are primarily vegetarians" (5). Of course such statements fired up the vegetarian agenda.
What else does Tuttle have to say in his extensive review of primate literature on diet?
Orangutans have been widely observed to eat insects and sometimes carrion, but: "MacKinnon (1971, 1974a) never saw wild orangutans drink from streams or eat vertebrate prey. He found no hair, feathers or bones in their feces" (p. 66), "Vertebrate remains were not found in any of the fecal samples (Rijksen, 1978)" (p.69), ". . . the only report of meat-eating by wild Pongo pygmaeus is that of a consorting young Ketambe female" (p.74).
Common chimpanzees are now also known to hunt and even engage in the cannibalistic feeding on their infants. This by no means proves that all chimp groups have engaged in this behaviour, or that it is nutritionally essential. The following findings have been less well reported: According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp diets was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen spent 75 days of a 3-month period tracking and observing chimps. He made direct unquantified observations and examined fecal deposits and leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too limited due to seasonal variations in chimp die.
In Reynolds and Reynolds (1965), Tuttle says that a 300 hour study of Budongo Forest chimps over an 8-month period revealed "no evidence for avian eggs, termites or vertebrates", although they thought that insects formed 1% of their diet (p.81). In another study of Budongo Forest chimps from 1966 to 1967, Sugiyama did not observe "meat-eating or deliberate captures of arthropods", although he reported that "the chimpanzees did ingest small insects that infested figs" (p.82).
Tuttle says that later observations at Budongo by Suzuki revealed meat eating. Where the earlier observations wrong, or incomplete, or maybe an accurate reflection of their diet at the time? Did the chimps change their diet later? We do not know. Chimps sometimes change their diets on a monthly basis. A study of chimps at the Kabogo Point region from 1961 to 1962 by Azuma and Toyoshima, revealed that they witnessed "only one instance of chimpanzees ingesting animal food, vis. termites or beetles from rotten wood." (p.87). From 1963 to 1964, similar observations were found in Kasakati Basin by a Kyoto University team, and when Izawa and Itani published in 1966 they reported "no chimpanzees eating insects, vertebrates, avian eggs, soil or tree leaves and found no trace in the 14 stools that they inspected " (p.86). In contrast Kawabe and Suzuki found the Kasakati chimps hunting in the same year (p.88), although only 14 of 174 fecal samples contained traces of insects and other animal foods. So perhaps these differing observations are due to seasonal variation, or even local differences (cultural variation) in feeding preferences - Tuttle does not reveal which. Maybe some of the chimps groups are 'vegetarian', while other are not. But see the Kortlandt observations below before believing that all chimps are meat-eaters.
Far less is known about bonobo feeding habits than about the common chimpanzee. Like chimps, the bonobo is also known to eat insects and carrion, although unlike chimps it has not been observed to hunt. Kano and Mulavwa provided the most detailed account of the feeding behaviour of Wamba bonobos based on a 4-month study. Tuttle reports that their diet was 80% fruit pulp, 15% fibrous foods and 5% seeds, and that "Animal foods constituted a minute part of their fare" (p.95).
The best evidence, if there is any, of a "vegetarian" ape is the gorilla. As with the other apes, there is great variation in what gorillas eat based on their locality, and season. A 15-month study of gorillas at Campo by Calvert, is reported by Tuttle (p.100), in which he says that out of 280 stools, 1 example of stomach contents and 1400 feeding sites, plus direct observations, there was "no evidence" that "Campo gorillas ingested animal matter." Similarly, Casimir and Butenandt followed a group about 20 gorillas at Kahuzi during 15 months in 1971 to 1972 (Tuttle, ibid., p.102). They collected 43 fecal samples at fairly regular intervals but none "contained remains of vertebrates or invertebrates". In addition, the gorillas did not disturb active birds and honeybee nests that were clearly visible near their own nests. Nor did they unearth bee nests. Goodall also noted that Kahuzi gorillas ignored eggs and fledglings and did not invade bees nests (Tuttle, ibid., p.105), and that none of the many fecal samples he found contained animal remnants. Tuttle also reports that the "most detailed" study of 10 groups of Zairean Virunga mountain gorillas by Schaller in 13 months from 1956 to 1960, including fecal samples and 466 direct hours of observation, found "no evidence that they raided apian nests, which were common at Kabara, ingested animal foods, or drank water." (p.107) In 1959, a 64-day study by Kawai and Mizuhara of gorillas at Mts. Muhavura and Gahinga also found "no evidence for animal foods in the gorillas' fare." (p.108)
The story for gorillas is by no means a clear one, as findings seem to vary from one study to another. You can pick them to suit your agenda. For example, Adriaan Kortlandt says in 'Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates', page 133-135, that "Gorillas have never been observed to eat honey, eggs, insects or meat, not even when they were sitting or nesting almost on top of honeycomb or a bird's nest, except for one single case of honey-eating reported by Sabater-Pi (1960)" He adds however, that Fossey (1974) reports that slugs, larvae and worms were found to constitute 1% of the food item observations recorded. Kortlandt adds that "No animal remains have been found in gorilla dung, except for one case presumably indicating cannibalism (Fossey, 1981)."
In Noel Rowes colourful book 'The Pictorial Guide To The Living Primates' there are a total of 13 primate species listed as eating no animal matter. These are:
Callithrix kuhlii
Callicebus personatus
Hapalemur aureus
Lemur catta
Chiropotes albinasus
Chiropotes satanas
Procolobus verus
Trachypithecus cristatus
Aloatta seniculus
Trachypithecus vetulus
Aloatta palliata
Hylobates concolor
Ateles belzebuth
Species listed as eating less than 1% of their diet as animal matter include the following species:
Gorilla gorilla beringei, 0.1%
Pithecia albicans, 0.4%
Callithrix humeralifer, 0.5%
Pithecia pithecia, 0.8%

If primates do eat animal matter, why?
It is not enough to argumentum ad Novitatem, state that later differing observations disprove earlier observations -- this is concerning in a laboratory setting where all external variables are controlled. Differences in behaviour patterns may arise swiftly, or may vary geographically -- older findings may be perfectly valid. The use of predation in Old World monkeys is also discussed and it seems that this is "primarily an emergency measure for special needs (Kortlandt and Kooij, 1963)." In support of the idea that the eating of animal products is a response to environmental stress, he sites some of his findings and those of Jane Goodall (from personal communications) stating that in nine tests, when groups compromising on average 9.4 apes passed by a total of 16 times and noticed some hens eggs, placed in dummy birds nests, only six times (38%) did an individual take away and probably eat an egg, and these eggs were presumed to only have been eaten by 3 individuals. However, in the harsher environment at Gombe, Goodhall observed that 60% of the chimpanzees ate the hen's eggs at the camp-site.
Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates is undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-dwelling populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the reasons given below in his evidence.
* the absence (or virtual absence) of animal matter in the digestive systems of hundreds of hunted, dissected or otherwise investigated cases
* the rarity of parasites indicating carnivorous habits
* rarity of pertinent field observations
* the responses when he placed live as well as dead potential prey animals along the chimpanzee paths at Beni (in the poorer environments of the savanna landscape however, predation on vertebrates appears to be much more common)
Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of course, to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists have never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter that have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research."
So it appears that chimps, and perhaps hominids, have resorted to eating meat because no suitable plant food was available. Interestingly Kortlandt cites old findings of renowned German zoologist Reichenow, who published an article in 1920, relating how wild chimpanzees and gorillas had possibly symbiotic ciliates that live mainly in the hindguts, but the majority of which were digested by the host. After the apes had been kept for a while, these ciliates died off and the primates developed digestive disorders. Furthermore "newly captured apes showed "disgust" (Abscheu) when offered meat, but after habituation they learned to eagerly eat large quantities of it." Reichenow inferred that the symbiotic function of these ciliates may be to convert vegetable food into what he named "animal food for a vegetarian that requires nutrients of animal origin".
The Paleopoetry Diet
Science is a wonderful tool at helping us to explore and understand nature. It is however, only one way of approaching an understanding of ourselves, and at 'Beyond Veg' we see the classical error of reification - where sciences abstract taxonomic constructs are held to reflect a concrete biological reality. While it is quite reasonable to order fossil finds or existing species into parsimonious patterns of similarity and perceived change through time, it is a great error to think that these organisations are reflective of our actual ancestry, or indeed that the fossils found are our actual ancestors (although they might be!).
Recent analysis of plant DNA has better enabled the relationships between plant species to be identified. As a result of this, the taxa have had to be changed because the phenotype information used to class the plants did not reflect their genetic relatedness. If the taxonomy of existing organisms, which we examine every aspect of, is still misleading us as to biological relatedness, then what hope have we for reliably relating organisms for which we only have fossil fragments and no DNA?
According to 'Beyond Veg' all the paleontologists evidence indicates that human ancestors were "omnivores". But how much scientific weight should we apply to what paleontologists say? According to Richard Lewontin (6), in his book 'It Ain't Necessarily So', we can only be sure a fossil is really a human ancestor if it is already "indubitably" human, but then it has no interest. Furthermore he says that "The further back in time one goes and the greater the differences from us, the more likely it is that the bones belong to some twenty-second cousin twelve times removed." (p.59) As each new fossil find is incorporated into the evolutionary tree, the tree becomes more complex, and the simple linear view of our alleged ancestry that is presented, has to be adjusted. Lewontin says that "most fossils of different ages cannot be connected in a linear sequence, but represent a small sample from a lot of parallel lines."
While paleontology offers us a glimpse into what human evolution may have been like, it does not give us anything like a conclusive, or even an accurate picture. At its best, such evidence may only serve as crude, and perhaps sometimes misleading guide as to what actually happened. Some people are seduced into feeling that paleontology offers us an accurate history. This belief is fuelled by a desire to know their past, more than by scientific fact.
The fossil record can be assembled to conform to what we would expect from the concept of evolutionary theory, but it does not describe the evolution that actually happened - that would be an error of reification.

Conclusions
This article has clearly demonstrated numerous gross and glaring errors in the 'Beyond Veg' material, errors of logic and in philosophy. It has proven that the author does not understand evolution, and that by omission, a distorted view of the available scientific evidence has been produced. It has shown how the authors incorrectly report scientific observations, and draw invalid deductions, and how they refuse to concede that humans are frugivores. Sufficient evidence has been produced to demonstrate that some gorilla groups are accurately described as "vegetarian", and also that some chimp groups may not have been meat-eaters. Similarly, many primates have been identified that are not known to ingest animal matter.

References
1. D. J. Chivers, P. Langer, The Digestive System In Mammals: Food Form And Function, Camb. Uni. Press, 1994, p.25
2. S. J. Gould, Life's Grandeur: The spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin, Vintage,1992
3. D. J. Chivers et al., Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates, Plenum Press, NY 1984
4. The Cambridge Encyclopedia Of Human Evolution, Jones, Martin and Pilbeam, Camb. Uni. Press, 1992
5. R. H. Tuttle, Apes of the World; Their Social Behaviour Communication, Mentality and Ecology, 1986
6. R. Lewontin, It Ain't Necessarily So, Granta, 2000

Copyright: The text of this article and all related figures are not copyright, and may be freely reproduced or distributed by any party, without reservation, although the author prefers to be identified and so accredited. This HTML is copyright © J. S. Coleman, 2001, all rights reserved.
contact: jsc@eloi.nildram.co.uk

Peace and Love..........John

Here is my File Preview on tom billings and beyondveg...
…File Preview…
• - Tom doesn't seem to post all too often, but when he does, at least back since the summer (or earlier) he's mostly trying to discredit JR/John Rose and make him look foolish and mean. I read one of Tom's posts before I ever read any of JR/John's, and in it Tom was saying how JR always attacks etc. So I did a search on all posts by JR back through the summer. There were alot of posts by Jeff N, Tom, and JR. I expected to read JR's posts and see some pretty hateful stuff, however, I didn't find that at all. All I noticed was that JR was debating that 100% raw is the best way to go. On the other hand, when I read Tom's, they ironically sounded very attacking towards JR. After all the messages I've read by Tom from summer until now, I get the feeling that Tom feels extremely threatened by JR/John and puts most of his energy into making him look bad. I've also gotten the feeling that Tom didn't do very well on the 100% raw food diet, therefore, he wants to discredit that it is possible for anyone to do well on a diet of 100% raw foods, even though there are many people who've been doing it for years and enjoy extremely good health (including JR/John). Maybe he's afraid of feeling like a failure, so he has to prove that it's not possible for anyone to do. I believe it could be possible that some people do better on less than 100% raw foods, but I also believe some do not go about it right, therefore they don't succeed. I don't know what category Tom fits into.
• Wow, y’all have played this song and dance way too long. You guys start off by attacking 100% raw fooders and then when they reply, you claim that raw fooders are angry and dogmatic. I have posted over 100,000 words since I've been here back in May 2000, and I challenge anyone to find one negative post. In all honesty, I've had some very rude responses to me and not once have I responded back in the same manner. I received some emails from some who commented on this very topic back in August 2000. I won't post their names, but I think others might like to read what they wrote: Email #1: "These guys have 3 basic stategies, one is to say that raw food doesn't work long term with nothing backing it up. two they pretend to be another person and make a fake story of how they were on all raw and it didn't work have gone back to cooked and everything is better example - long plays post. They say that raw fooders have mental problems and are filled with anger. They insult people with things like raw fooders all eat cooked food in secret trying to get you to react in anger so they can lay claim to the statement that raw fooders are angry and dogmatic. These guys thrive on hate and making others angry. Did you see any of the posts by onus on the dg list all of them got removed so action there is being taken. So my plan of action is to talk about raw food sucssess based on my experience and to not mention anything about jn or tb or even cooked food. Just promote all raw by its many benifits especialy what its done for you and say it without anger. Then all they can do if they dare is to call you a liar. These guys cant handle any sucsess."
• ...the beyondveg.com site...This site is run by a very confused individual, who, in addition to not being able to support his beliefs with facts or logic when challenged, and who uses ad hominem attacks when in that position, also claims to be able to read other people's minds through his modem. No doubt, he maintains that level of credibility and intellectual integrity on the site.
He also stole the title, Beyond Vegetarianism, from my article of the same name that predated his site by almost a decade.
• Yes Ron, I know about beyondveg.com and have read the info, and they are off the mark. The authors of beyondveg.com mean well, yet they fell into the trap of eating way too much sweet fruit WHICH IS UNBALANCED FOR MOST unless you constantly burn it off as is the case with professional athletes.
• Rex tried to explain to Tom Billings that his failure with a fruitarian diet was largely due to his failure to obtain high brix qualtiy produce. Rex was eventually removed from Billing's list.
• Basic errors in logic and philosophy are dealt with in the first section and in the second section, an in-depth analysis of some of the more complex issues is presented.
• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
• Why isn't 'Beyond Veg' short and specific?
• Countless of the claims of Beyond Veg are unsupported by scientific evidence, they are solely the often false and bizarre, beliefs of the authors.
• Variation is the normal in nature, and what is common or rare is irrelevant in establishing the correct diet of an individual species.
• As any PR hack knows, the best way of presenting your case in a positive light is to omit any contradicting facts. (see the second section for other major omissions)
• The problem I have with Tom Billings site, is that he personally had bad experiences with HIS version of a raw vegan diet and then implies that all raw vegan diets must be bad.
• Hmm, if taurine was the explanation for the cat study, then I guess you can conclude dwarf white beans need taurine to become pole beans again. William Albrecht thought it was tryptophane. I guess beyondveg knows more about soil fertility than William Albrecht. At least the Pottenger dwarf bean study (a part of the Pottenger cat study) shows that even cat dung used as fertilizer varies in quality according to what the cat ate.
• I would like to inform everyone intersested in my recent interaction with Tom Billings of beyondveg.com. I e-mailed him with some serious remarks about their web site and he answered me with the most rude and insulting comments I have ever experienced.
• Tom Billings even went so far as to put some information from cattle ranchers on the web site about the environmental consequences of eating meat. We can only guess how objective that will be! Obviously beyondveg.com is only concerned with bashing the raw food vegan world!!!!
• There is some useful information on that site, but it's definately slanted. I think that if you want to figure out how to successfully eat a raw food diet, you should seek out those that have been able to do it successfully rather than those who have failed. If you're looking for reasons that a 100% raw food diet is not viable, you're going to find them. I was in that mind set for quite awhile - looking for all the reasons why I shouldn't do 100% raw food even though I knew in my heart and soul it was the right thing for me. And, as long as I was in that space, it was absolutely impossible for me to stick with raw food. My intellectual self was bogged down with all the conflicting information that was available. Any data or information can be slanted to prove the point of the person who is presenting this information. My "red flag" would be if any person or entity was not open to considering other viewpoints, opinions or experiences. There's just as many or more people that have had no problems with a long-term, 100% raw food diet. Let's hear from these people.
• The problem I have with beyondveg is that the site doesn't distinguish between scientific fact and speculation. …The problem with Tom is that he regards everything on his web site as an absolute truth. He is to unthoughtful to realise that a large part of the views posted on beyondveg are speculation instead of scientific fact. This is what I experienced in his interaction with me. He cotinuously referred to remarks from me with "that is already debunked on beyondveg". … The discussion was hopelessly steered in the wrong direction because of attitude problems. This is one of my main concerns with scientists: they come up with valid information, but when they start speculating, they don't indicate that it is speculation, but present it as hard scientific facts.
• I read up on Tom Billing's history, by the way, and it is great information on why not to eat only fruit for 2 years straight, eating disorders and similar topics. Just because he failed at being all raw dosen't mean that it can't be done. I'm glad I've got his stuff to read so I can avoid making his mistakes.
• ...beyondveg is presenting information as scientific fact while it is speculation. I can come up with just as good scientific speculation in favor of raw food vegan.
• …since beyondveg is quoted very often on this board and I think it is extremely important to know that a lot of the information on beyondveg is based on speculation and not on proof, although they like to present it that way.
• Quite a few people seem to like to bash 100% raw but I've yet to hear any good reasons why and I am open to logic. It seems to me that this is their personal addiction being directed onto others. I've sifted throught the Beyond veg website and all I've found is good examples about how not to be a raw foodest (like Tom Billings eating nothing but fruit for 2 years straight) given by people with some serious eating disorders.
• Yeah, he saw the negative effects of an unbalanced diet, period. Have you read Tom Billings's personal story? Its pretty obvious that he went about it in an unbalanced way, probably not knowing any better at the time. It’s nice to have it as an example of an unbalanced raw diet but then again most of the current literature on the subject would tell you that eating nothing but fruit for 2 years straight with binges on cooked food is not balanced and can cause problems.
• No one may have said that raw fooders are the ONLY ones who display food-obsessive behavior, but what is Billings trying to imply when he likens raw fooders to anorexics. He states, "Here the point is the obsessive attitude toward food common to the anorexic and the rawfooder."
• He comes across as if raw fooders are abnormally obsessed with food, as if SAD eaters are not just as obsessed. Almost everyone I know is in some way "obsessed" with food. Let's face it, food is a huge part of our lives, and affects our health more than any other single factor, in my opinion.
• And comparing raw fooders to anorexics - the guy is insulting. Not to mention, Billings logic is extremely flawed, and when someone calls him on it, he is a total jerk.
• why is Billings making such a big deal of these things, because when he does, he makes it seem as though these problems are unique to raw fooders, which they clearly are not.
• Billings has persistently failed to support his many claims with any acceptable facts and figures, and on the occasions when he does, he picks only the information that supports his position, and adds his own interpretations that are not the opinions of the authorities he cites. When faced with authoritative information that counters his party line, his usual reply consists of insults or evasion, and where possible collusion with the moderator to have the dissidents removed from the debate. This is usually followed up with a revisionist account of events, branding his detractors as "hateful", "extremists", or better still his almost oxymoronic "dietary racists" label (one can choose diet, but not race).
• If Billings wishes us to believe that his ill fated fruitarian exploits are due, not to a severe failing in agronomy, but intrinsically to a fruit diet, then he must firstly demonstrate with figures and logs, the nutrient value of his fruits, the fertilizers applied, cultivars selected, soil pH and mineral composition, plus amounts eaten daily, were all correct and favourable, and still he failed to thrive. If indeed he really did eat the best quality produce, and failed to thrive, only then would his claims be supported. In any case, humans just are not really a tree fruit eating species. We evolved living on the ground, a zone more in line with a berry and legume diet, possibly with the addition of some low growing edible vegetation, eaten with insects and all!? We certainly did not evolve on commercial fruits, all of which only arose over the last 3000 years, along with the steadily worsening agricultural farce.
• I suspect that Billings understands horticulture as little as he understands ethical debate, and the scientific principals - which is not much, if at all.
• Again, Tom Billings shows us how much of a scientist he is. I truly hope that people who are posting stuff of Beyond Veg on this board, first do a little research to find out how much information has already been written on this board clearly proving the total lack of common sense and scientific integrity in Tom Billings.
• I've read all of Tom Billing's stuff and it is a good reference on what not to do…
• Next to the arrogant attitude of Tom Billings shown in my previous point, he has shown to me and John Rose and probably many others, that he is extremely aggressive and unreasonable in his communications.
• I laugh at the suggestion that the viewpoints on that website are "balanced" and "scientific". The man has an axe to grind, and he makes use of all of the double standards and subtle techniques (conscious or not) of interpreting studies to support foregone conclusions...most of what he has to say consists of attacking the credibility (though not always by name) of well known raw foodists.
• Tom billings failed on the raw diet for any number of reasons, and so he concludes that there is something wrong with the diet, instead of concluding that his own actions were at fault. It is easy to bash rawfoodism because it is a difficult diet to perfect and the detoxification process can make it appear as though the diet is actually harming people. If a person cant do something, the first reaction is to say it cant be done, but that is not a valid conclusion. Obviously tom billings has emotional issues that interfere with his judgement. He does raise relevant issues however, and the main one he raises is that deficiencies can develop if one is not careful. I agree with him on that point.
• Billings has long been viewed as an emotional basketcase by many of us here!
• I call him a basketcase based on past threads on this board where people have posted emails that he sent to them in response to comments or questions about his website. He basically bashed them and threw tantrums without attempting to have an intelligent discussion on the topics.
• …if you can weed through the psycho babble you will find that there is no content to Billings' raw foodism bashing.
• There is no rational, scientifically-credible thinking presented in this article, or on beyondveg in general, just pseudoscientific, anti-vegetarian/vegan propaganda, apparently written by similarly "failed" vegetarians/vegans, the purpose of which is to take the responsibility for "failures" from the errors or misadventures of the "failed" individual and pin it on a specific meaningless philosophy, while promoting yet other unsupportable and meaningless philosophies.
• Tom Billing's spreads fear by exploiting ignorance; if you side with him, then you are either in league with his motives, or are a victim of it yourself.
…End of File Preview…

Peace and Love..........John

Does anyone have a picture of tom billings? Long ago someone posted a picture of him, but for some reason (perhaps because it was NOT very flattering) it was removed before I could save it. I did a quick google search and found a picture posted on [www.30bananasaday.com] but this doesn't look anything like the picture I remember long ago.

I know this sounds a little superficial, but tom is criticizing how other people look and if he is going to criticize others, we should be able to see what he looks like. If the picture I saw long ago was legit, there's a good reason why tom doesn't want to show his picture as he does NOT look very healthy!!!

Peace and Love..........John

Sproutarian: I hope you don't mind me asking, but what do you mean by "eating crudely"?

I never understood such a site. It makes more sense to just promote standard american diet, or some other ideal if a person believes in an ideal. Better sites usually have their ideal as the center piece, and only peripherally attack other models, but never the centerpiece of the information.

<<<The good thing about Tom's work is that he makes some people think abit more about raw vegan diets and their potential problems, so hopefully it makes them research into diet more so they can hopefully avoid mistakes made previously by other people.>>>

When I first found tom’s website long ago, I spent a lot of time reading his articles and I was NOT IMPRESSED and it’s NOT because I am dogmatic or closed-minded - it’s because tom has NO SENSE of LOGIC!!!

I agree that many people in the Raw Food Movement are DOGMATIC, but my problem is not with those already eating Raw Food as it is with those who are considering Raw Food as a lifestyle change for the first time, which are the people I am focusing on. We have to remember, as Schopenhauer pointed out, that “Reason is usually the servant to desire.” This means that most people are looking for an excuse to keep feeding their addictions and when they go to tom’s website, they read what they want to hear and never give Raw Food a fair shot.

I agree with you that we have to be open-minded, but I don’t find tom’s information worthwhile, except to get us to think about it more and make sure we don’t make the mistakes tom and others have made. I also realize that we have 2 Groups of Needs we must Satisfy and a Raw Vegan Diet only Satisfies 1 of those Needs, so it’s not as simple as Eat Raw Food.

Once again, I spent a lot of time scrutinizing toms’ website and tom has NO SENSE of LOGIC!!! If you read my File Preview above, most of those comments were not coming from closed-minded people, they were coming from people who had firsthand experience dealing with this nut case. If you ever tried to communicate with tom, you would agree with everyone else that there is something seriously wrong with this guy.

Peace and Love..........John

In order to understand Tom and his work it's good to know where he is coming from, and then people might know why he seems to be so negative or angry.There are many of us around from those times who believed whatever we read and tried it - with disastrous results. There was no internet in the 70's or 80's to get feedback or to find out the truth, so everyone thought it was just themselves having no willpower rather then the diets being deficient - unlike now where the truth is exposed.

The fact that some people may have succeeded is as meaningful as someone living to 110 eating normal food and drinking tea and red wine every day and attributing their long life to the tea and red wine - not their genetics and moderate eating.

John, I agree with your 2 needs, but I believe that many people in our society would never be able to function properly on a raw vegan diet, or even a vegan diet even supplying those 2 needs. At some point people need to face the reality of human life as it exists nowadays, as opposed to how we would like it to be in an idealistic world.

I had a little this evening. I can only have a few tablespoons at a time. I am vegan, but apparently there must be a big difference between that and raw or nearly raw vegan. Its not like water yet.

The body has ways to excrete/remove toxins .. the body uses these channels.. via feces, via sweat, via aspiration (breath), and via urine.

I cant find any study that shows a clean diet makes urine a good idea to drink considering the toxins we are exposed to today on a daily basis that dont just come by our food , but by what we touch, breath , eat and drink and what we are exposed too without any effort (constant radiation from electro magnetics, cell phones etc etc.).

this therapy might have been nifty a hundred years ago but I wouldnt put much stock into it in todays world we are exposed to so much in so many ways

POW WOW BAM substance is too woo woo for me .. show me some science

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2013 08:26AM by Jgunn.

thank you sproutarian for sharing your experience about this practice/therapy - as for me, I must say that when I tried it many years ago,I felt my mind opening and becoming sharper and clearer...