From: owner-rawlife-digest@rawtimes.com (rawlife-digest) To: rawlife-digest@rawtimes.com Subject: rawlife-digest V1 #940 Reply-To: rawlife@rawtimes.com Sender: owner-rawlife-digest@rawtimes.com Errors-To: owner-rawlife-digest@rawtimes.com Precedence: bulk rawlife-digest Friday, March 29 2002 Volume 01 : Number 940 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:59:23 -0500 From: don@health101.org Subject: [rawlife] science, wisdom, healing foods, juices, greens, nuts, nuts to us - --------------25F2CE4A5A4E096825BE8DB8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit SCIENCE AND WISDOM Yes, there is much science that exists solely to market a product with dubious health benefits (and many times with detrimental health aspects). Nothing frosts my cookies more than loaded studies and slanted conclusions. Also, looking at something in isolation (alcohol for example) can make a case for just about anything! But there is good, sound science too. And unfortunately we need it if for no other reason than to counteract the junk science. But of all the ways of looking at things, I always start with nature's perspective. And this endeavor is what requires wisdom. The wisdom to do what's in your body's best interest even if it goes against your programming. The wisdom to realize that much of your programming serves someone else more than you. When an avid meat eater dismisses out-of-hand any credible and compelling information that shows the advantage of a plant-based diet, somewhere there's a "Mr. Burns" meat industry participant with a devilish grin on their face, wringing their hands, saying, "Excellent." (Mr. Burns is an evil, greedy billionaire cartoon character on "The Simpsons" -- a show with much hidden truth... Bob A. would get a kick out of it.) BUT AT WHAT PRICE? > If you want to go back to living in caves and > hunting and foraging, more power to you. > I'll enjoy the technology that is the fruit of science, > and marvel at how it's improved my quality of life. I'd rather be foraging, without clothes, without the need for a wallet or the script carried around in it. When you really think about it, what technology has improved the quality of life compared to the days when we roamed about eating the fruit of the land? As long as we got enough to eat with out being eaten, we were doing pretty good (this is pre-fire days BTW). Our immediate families lived close enough so we didn't need transportation or telephones, and our feet got us wherever we needed to be, giving us physical activity in the process. We didn't need clothes because our environment was comfortable, and we hadn't yet developed the unnatural "Oh my God, you can almost see her nipple through that blouse - disgusting!" attitude many have today. And today, more than half of Americans are overweight, and a quarter are obese, both contributing to ill-health. Technology is partly to blame for this. Technology is partly to blame for all degenerative disease. And IMO, technology will be our undoing. So, ON BALANCE, technology will not be shown to have improved the humans lot. In fact, some day, when this planet is a museum stop for some intergalactic tour group, the guide will most likely be overheard to say, "And this is the planet known as 'Earth', 'Gaia', or 'Terran' as it was known. It is famous for once being inhabited by beings not too different from us. But they were their own undoing. They developed technology which undermined their health and damaged the planet. Nature eventually had enough, and dwindled their numbers to a fraction of what they had once been. Their downfall began when they had developed enough intelligence to wonder how they could avoid being eaten by the carnivorous animals that shared the planet with them. They rationalized that if they did as the carnivores did, maybe they could be as powerful as them and be able to prevent being eaten. So they attempted to behave like carnivores. To eat as the lion ate, they had to master fire to be able to render animal flesh digestible. This was the beginning of the end for homosapians. Today, there are still a few humans in existence, but they live as they originally did, with no technology. It seems this is the only way they can survive and thrive. A fascinating species, because there were some wise enough to know the things they should not do, but there were also those who knew but didn't care. They actually predicted their own demise by saying, 'We sow the seeds of our own destruction.'... Oh look, there's one of them now! Can you see him? Hiding up in that tree, eating a mango." "HEALING FOODS" I'm going to repeat this so people don't get the wrong idea. There is no such thing as a "healing food". Foods do NOT have the power to heal. They supply fuel and nutrients. The nutrients are used BY THE BODY to maintain itself so that it can do its various processes, healing being one of them. One of the main nutrients that is used for healing is NOT supplied by food. It is DEEP sleep. If a substance makes you feel ill, it does not promote healing. If you eat enough grass, you will get sick. If you drink enough wheatgrass juice, you will very likely vomit (if you don't, it doesn't mean it's good for you). What we need when healthy, we need when ill. We need the same things in health as we do in sickness: The proper amount of sleep, the proper amounts of nutrients, etc. Notice I saw 'the proper amounts'. We may need more sleep when ill than when not. There is no food that promotes healing. I saw all this with conviction, because after much study, this I know to be true. If you don't agree, fine with me. I've been studying reality for over 28 years. I seek the truth though the heavens may fall. If you want to believe that there are foods that heal, at least you can make use of the placebo affect. And hopefully the benefit of which is not outweighed by any of the substance's detriment. JUICES If you remove the fiber, a nutrient that is needed by the body, how do you then wind up with "more" nutrients? GREENS ARE MEDICINE? > Honiball calls greens "the fruitarian's medicine." While I agree with Honiball that humans should eat some greens too, (greens being a bit better at providing some minerals than fruit), they are not medicine - they do not act on the body; they are not capable of healing anything. They just provide the body with nutrients (and are not very good at providing fuel BTW - fruit's job). NO MORE INTERNET > Education will be the answer, and it seems that > early grassroots efforts have turned into a > groundswell. If it's not quashed by the bureaucrats > (might be difficult, considering the internet)... Make no mistake, if the internet proves to be providing too much truth to where people's eyes start to become really opened to such a point where corporate profits fall in spite of the PR firm's best propaganda efforts, a bill will be passed that allows govment to censor (not the word the bill will use), all info on the internet. Or the internet will become owned by corporations, no govment involvement needed. History repeats itself. LOST CAUSE > What if you were a cosmic social worker, trying > to help the less enlightened > slobs in the universe? Then again, they may chalk us up to being a lost cause, or have a "hands off" policy. And I wouldn't blame 'em. >> But what would motivate that transformation? > I don't know, what motivated yours? > If you can do it, others can also. > You're not all that special, you know. I think I was born "good". I was then programmed onto the unhealthy path. At some point I came to the realization that I was on the wrong path, and the rest is history. But those who are (un)naturally on the path to self- and other's destruction will never come to any similar realizations. The path they are on is natural for them, and they'll be on it their whole lives. This is where natural selection comes in... a long process relative to a human lifespan. "JUST FINE" > And every time someone points out all the benefits > of breast milk, the very next issue has a bunch of > very, very angry letters to the editor and they all > say, "well my kid was formula fed and he turned out > just fine." True, "just fine" is a relative thing. When my dad was diagnosed with colon cancer, the tumor size indicated it took about five years to get that big (as my fist). I asked my dad how he felt for the last five years. He said, "Fine!" But those folks you mentioned above have a bias. They want to believe their kids turned out fine on formula. Whether their kids did or not is a whole other issue. Doug's uncle's kid's definition of "turned out just fine" may be more accurate. The proof is in the pudding. I'll ask Doug today how the kid is doing. 2nd AMENDMENT The 2nd is not what allows people to carry a fire arm for self protection. It is the 9th! If one bases their right on the wrong amendment, they're toast. (9th = "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The right of self-protection cannot be denied.) > Exactly how realistic is it to believe that they > won't take your child because you didn't use > a real birth certificate when it was born? Parents who allowed themselves to get into a family "court" situation have "hidden" the child while they deal with the court. And they deal with the court by appearing only to challenge jurisdiction, AND NOTHING ELSE! Most judges will try and get you to traverse in to the court's jurisdiction, but if you know what you're doing (and most people don't), you can hold your ground. The best scenario is NOT to become acquainted with any part of the system in the first place. If the kid wants to "opt in" when he reaches the age of consent, that's his business. NUTS AND SEEDS FOR FAT >> Fatty fruits may be better for your health than >> getting your fat from >> animal sources. > And there are nuts and seeds. True, but they are not the best source IMO. The are super low water content foods, and can contain tannic acid which interferes with iron utilization (in addition to two other nutrients which escape me at the moment). And if you are not properly hydrated when eating them, it's not a good scenario. Then there's the overeating issue, easy for some people to do especially when the nuts are already shelled. Then there's the issue of freshness. All nuts (even the in-shell) are dried to prevent molding. An almond fresh from the earth is very different from a store-bought almond. True, fruits and veggies are not the same once they appear in the store, but water content is the issue with nuts. Personally, I'd rather get my fats from fruits (tropical) than from nuts. INFORMAL CHILD CARE http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=childcare21m&date=20020221 If "informal care givers" become regulated by the state, they deserve it. People get the govment they deserve. But when you understand that children that are the product of state sanctioned marriages are the partial property of the state as well as the parents, and the state can mandate anything it wants for those children. And the meat and dairy industries have vested interests in informal caregivers feeding the children meat and dairy (well duh!). Can't have vegetarian informal caregivers warping a child's mind with plant-based propaganda! LINK 101 I hope people understand that when they see this: >From Foodmarket Exchange http://www.foodmarketexchange.com/datacenter/news/dc_ns_index_detail.php3 ?newsid=6608 they need to fix the link so it will work properly. In the above example, if you click on the link, it won't take you to the intended location. The problem is that emails can cut short the lines of text, rendering some internet addresses incomplete. What I do is copy and paste the whole link (when it spans more than one line) into a word processor, re-knit it into one line, remove any >'s added by the email program, and then copy and paste the repaired address into my browser. If you click on a link in an email, and you get "Page Not Found" or something to that effect, scrutinize the link you clicked on carefully. Don - --------------25F2CE4A5A4E096825BE8DB8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  
 

SCIENCE AND WISDOM

Yes, there is much science that exists solely to market a product with dubious health benefits (and many times with detrimental health aspects). Nothing frosts my cookies more than loaded studies and slanted conclusions. Also, looking at something in isolation (alcohol for example) can make a case for just about anything! But there is good, sound science too. And unfortunately we need it if for no other reason than to counteract the junk science. But of all the ways of looking at things, I always start with nature's perspective. And this endeavor is what requires wisdom. The wisdom to do what's in your body's best interest even if it goes against your programming. The wisdom to realize that much of your programming serves someone else more than you. When an avid meat eater dismisses out-of-hand any credible and compelling information that shows the advantage of a plant-based diet, somewhere there's a "Mr. Burns" meat industry participant with a devilish grin on their face, wringing their hands, saying, "Excellent." (Mr. Burns is an evil, greedy billionaire cartoon character on "The Simpsons" - -- a show with much hidden truth... Bob A. would get a kick out of it.)
 
 

BUT AT WHAT PRICE?

> If you want to go back to living in caves and
> hunting and foraging, more power to you.
> I'll enjoy the technology that is the fruit of science,
> and marvel at how it's improved my quality of life.

I'd rather be foraging, without clothes, without the need for a wallet or the script carried around in it. When you really think about it, what technology has improved the quality of life compared to the days when we roamed about eating the fruit of the land? As long as we got enough to eat with out being eaten, we were doing pretty good (this is pre-fire days BTW). Our immediate families lived close enough so we didn't need transportation or telephones, and our feet got us wherever we needed to be, giving us physical activity in the process. We didn't need clothes because our environment was comfortable, and we hadn't yet developed the unnatural "Oh my God, you can almost see her nipple through that blouse - disgusting!" attitude many have today. And today, more than half of Americans are overweight, and a quarter are obese, both contributing to ill-health. Technology is partly to blame for this. Technology is partly to blame for all degenerative disease. And IMO, technology will be our undoing.

So, ON BALANCE, technology will not be shown to have improved the humans lot. In fact, some day, when this planet is a museum stop for some intergalactic tour group, the guide will most likely be overheard to say, "And this is the planet known as 'Earth', 'Gaia', or 'Terran' as it was known. It is famous for once being inhabited by beings not too different from us. But they were their own undoing. They developed technology which undermined their health and damaged the planet. Nature eventually had enough, and dwindled their numbers to a fraction of what they had once been. Their downfall began when they had developed enough intelligence to wonder how they could avoid being eaten by the carnivorous animals that shared the planet with them. They rationalized that if they did as the carnivores did, maybe they could be as powerful as them and be able to prevent being eaten. So they attempted to behave like carnivores. To eat as the lion ate, they had to master fire to be able to render animal flesh digestible. This was the beginning of the end for homosapians. Today, there are still a few humans in existence, but they live as they originally did, with no technology. It seems this is the only way they can survive and thrive. A fascinating species, because there were some wise enough to know the things they should not do, but there were also those who knew but didn't care. They actually predicted their own demise by saying, 'We sow the seeds of our own destruction.'... Oh look, there's one of them now! Can you see him? Hiding up in that tree, eating a mango."
 
 

"HEALING FOODS"

I'm going to repeat this so people don't get the wrong idea.
There is no such thing as a "healing food". Foods do NOT have the power to heal. They supply fuel and nutrients. The nutrients are used BY THE BODY to maintain itself so that it can do its various processes, healing being one of them. One of the main nutrients that is used for healing is NOT supplied by food. It is DEEP sleep. If a substance makes you feel ill, it does not promote healing. If you eat enough grass, you will get sick. If you drink enough wheatgrass juice, you will very likely vomit (if you don't, it doesn't mean it's good for you). What we need when healthy, we need when ill. We need the same things in health as we do in sickness: The proper amount of sleep, the proper amounts of nutrients, etc. Notice I saw 'the proper amounts'. We may need more sleep when ill than when not. There is no food that promotes healing. I saw all this with conviction, because after much study, this I know to be true. If you don't agree, fine with me. I've been studying reality for over 28 years. I seek the truth though the heavens may fall. If you want to believe that there are foods that heal, at least you can make use of the placebo affect. And hopefully the benefit of which is not outweighed by any of the substance's detriment.
 
 

JUICES

If you remove the fiber, a nutrient that is needed by the body, how do you then wind up with "more" nutrients?
 
 

GREENS ARE MEDICINE?

> Honiball calls greens "the fruitarian's medicine."

While I agree with Honiball that humans should eat some greens too, (greens being a bit better at providing some minerals than fruit), they are not medicine - they do not act on the body; they are not capable of healing anything. They just provide the body with nutrients (and are not very good at providing fuel BTW - fruit's job).
 
 

NO MORE INTERNET

> Education will be the answer, and it seems that
> early grassroots efforts have turned into a
> groundswell.  If it's not quashed by the bureaucrats
> (might be difficult, considering the internet)...

Make no mistake, if the internet proves to be providing too much truth to where people's eyes start to become really opened to such a point where corporate profits fall in spite of the PR firm's best propaganda efforts, a bill will be passed that allows govment to censor (not the word the bill will use), all info on the internet. Or the internet will become owned by corporations, no govment involvement needed. History repeats itself.
 
 

LOST CAUSE

> What if you were a cosmic social worker, trying
> to help the less enlightened
> slobs in the universe?

Then again, they may chalk us up to being a lost cause, or have a "hands off" policy. And I wouldn't blame 'em.
 

>> But what would motivate that transformation?

> I don't know, what motivated yours?
> If you can do it, others can also.
> You're not all that special, you know.

I think I was born "good". I was then programmed onto the unhealthy path. At some point I came to the realization that I was on the wrong path, and the rest is history. But those who are (un)naturally on the path to self- and other's destruction will never come to any similar realizations. The path they are on is natural for them, and they'll be on it their whole lives. This is where natural selection comes in... a long process relative to a human lifespan.
 
 

"JUST FINE"

> And every time someone points out all the benefits
> of breast milk, the very next issue has a bunch of
> very, very angry letters to the editor and they all
> say, "well my kid was formula fed and he turned out
> just fine."

True, "just fine" is a relative thing. When my dad was diagnosed with colon cancer, the tumor size indicated it took about five years to get that big (as my fist). I asked my dad how he felt for the last five years. He said, "Fine!"

But those folks you mentioned above have a bias. They want to believe their kids turned out fine on formula. Whether their kids did or not is a whole other issue. Doug's uncle's kid's definition of "turned out just fine" may be more accurate. The proof is in the pudding. I'll ask Doug today how the kid is doing.
 
 

2nd AMENDMENT

The 2nd is not what allows people to carry a fire arm for self protection. It is the 9th! If one bases their right on the wrong amendment, they're toast. (9th = "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The right of self-protection cannot be denied.)

> Exactly how realistic is it to believe that they
> won't take your child because you didn't use
> a real birth certificate when it was born?

Parents who allowed themselves to get into a family "court" situation have "hidden" the child while they deal with the court. And they deal with the court by appearing only to challenge jurisdiction, AND NOTHING ELSE! Most judges will try and get you to traverse in to the court's jurisdiction, but if you know what you're doing (and most people don't), you can hold your ground. The best scenario is NOT to become acquainted with any part of the system in the first place. If the kid wants to "opt in" when he reaches the age of consent, that's his business.
 
 

NUTS AND SEEDS FOR FAT

>> Fatty fruits may be better for your health than
>> getting your fat from
>> animal sources.

> And there are nuts and seeds.

True, but they are not the best source IMO. The are super low water content foods, and can contain tannic acid which interferes with iron utilization (in addition to two other nutrients which escape me at the moment). And if you are not properly hydrated when eating them, it's not a good scenario. Then there's the overeating issue, easy for some people to do especially when the nuts are already shelled. Then there's the issue of freshness. All nuts (even the in-shell) are dried to prevent molding. An almond fresh from the earth is very different from a store-bought almond. True, fruits and veggies are not the same once they appear in the store, but water content is the issue with nuts. Personally, I'd rather get my fats from fruits (tropical) than from nuts.
 
 

INFORMAL CHILD CARE
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=childcare21m&date=20020221

If "informal care givers" become regulated by the state, they deserve it. People get the govment they deserve. But when you understand that children that are the product of state sanctioned marriages are the partial property of the state as well as the parents, and the state can mandate anything it wants for those children. And the meat and dairy industries have vested interests in informal caregivers feeding the children meat and dairy (well duh!). Can't have vegetarian informal caregivers warping a child's mind with plant-based propaganda!
 
 

LINK 101

I hope people understand that when they see this:

>From Foodmarket Exchange
http://www.foodmarketexchange.com/datacenter/news/dc_ns_index_detail.php3
?newsid=6608

they need to fix the link so it will work properly. In the above example, if you click on the link, it won't take you to the intended location. The problem is that emails can cut short the lines of text, rendering some internet addresses incomplete. What I do is copy and paste the whole link (when it spans more than one line) into a word processor, re-knit it into one line, remove any >'s added by the email program, and then copy and paste the repaired address into my browser. If you click on a link in an email, and you get "Page Not Found" or something to that effect, scrutinize the link you clicked on carefully.

   Don
 
 
  - --------------25F2CE4A5A4E096825BE8DB8-- - -- rawlife - http://www.rawtimes.com/rawlife.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:51:33 -0800 From: "Mark Hovila" Subject: Re: [rawlife] science, wisdom, healing foods, juices, greens, nuts, nuts to us Don, > I think I was born "good". I was then programmed onto the unhealthy path. At some point I came to the realization that I was on the wrong path, and the rest is history. But those who are (un)naturally on the path to self- and other's destruction will never come to > any similar realizations. The path they are on is natural for them, and they'll be on it their whole lives. This is where natural selection comes in... a long process relative to a human lifespan. Not sure how you come to this conclusion. You were unnaturally on the path to self-destruction, yet you managed to break out of it. You are not unique in this respect. Many other people have done so and will continue to do so. Does it tickle your ego to think that you are a cut above the rest of humanity? Mark - -- rawlife - http://www.rawtimes.com/rawlife.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:04:23 -0800 From: "Mark Hovila" Subject: Re: [rawlife] If I Were An Alien... Ronn, > How could we possibly know how alien minds might work? To assume that > beings on another planet have the same concept of morality as we do, and that > as they evolve and become "enlightened" they also become more peaceful and > benevolent, is a lovely thought. But let's remember that this lovely thought > originated in a *human* mind. Life, morals, values and ultimate goals of > alien beings could very well be so different from ours as to be inconceivable > by us. Do thoughts really originate in the mind? Watch your thoughts and ask yourself where they come from, or to whom they appear. The Source of these thoughts cannot be different from the Source of thoughts originating in a human, a bug, a Venusian or whatever. Ask yourself whether the self-awareness involved in such a inquiry can be any different from the self-awareness of another species. This self-awareness is beyond morals, values, and form, and it is what binds us to everything else in the universe. But aside from that, my basic point was that any species which has the technology to do what ET craft have been observed and documented to do surely also has the technology to develop weapons of mass destruction, probably of far greater destructive power than any weapon which has been developed on earth. And yet they managed not to destroy themselves. This speaks in favor of a high degree of self-awareness. In contrast, there are probably millions of people on Earth who would wipe out the entire planet if they had the means to do so, or at least a continent or two. Mark - -- rawlife - http://www.rawtimes.com/rawlife.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:11:53 -0800 From: "roberto reid" Subject: [rawlife] new subscriber i am interested totally in joing and subscribing. i am venturing towards raw. im a vegan .now im going totally raw!!! im already on the right path . i manage a juice bar.green juice all day every day.IM still new to this so all help is greatly appreciated along with adivice and guidance.thank you all and travel light. i work @ healthy pleasures uptown in manhattan on broadway &93.. have A GREAT WEEKEND ALL See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp - -- rawlife - http://www.rawtimes.com/rawlife.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:59:56 -0000 From: jsc@eloi.nildram.co.uk Subject: [rawlife] Food for thought note from JR Ellis: not that John requires any permission to repost i just wanted to explain that this was not sent to rawlife but to me, as a subscriber to The Bionomic Nutrition Forum - --- this amusing statistical notice is passing around - not the first time I have heard this kind of thing! John - --- Number of physicians in the US: 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services) Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000. Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups): 1,500. Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188 Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. "FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one Doctor." Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a Public Health Measure, I have withheld the statistics on Lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical aid. Sell your guns and get a doctor. The Bionomic Nutrition Forum http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/forum.htm FORUM_Digest also available [unless otherwise noted, this text is free to use by non-profit organisations] - -- rawlife - http://www.rawtimes.com/rawlife.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:20:32 -0800 From: "MASHOOD ADEDIRAN" Subject: [rawlife] Re: DELUXE TYPE HAND JUICER We are pleased to inform you that we are the national distributor of DELUXE TYPE HAND JUICER. This unique product was editorial in the December 2001 PRODUCE BUSINESS NEWS MAGAZINE. At your request, we will send you our brochure and the price-list. Thenk you. Mashood Adediran, Marketing Director, shoody@37.com PRESS RELEASE DELUXE TYPE HAND JUICER: A NEW UNIQUE RESTAURANT AND NATURAL FOODS UTENSIL SHOODY ENTERPRISES, a Chicago-based national distributor of Deluxe Type Hand Juicer is now bringing healthy drinks to the restaurant and natural foods trade promising health and happiness to the health conscious customers. Deluxe type hand juicer editorialized in the December 2001 of PRODUCE BUSINESS NEWS is now becoming the most restaurant unique utensils that is allowing the restaurant to add fresh and non-addictive juice to their menu. With Deluxe type Hand Juicer, restaurant customers now have an alternative, they can now request for a glass of natural fruit juice, oranges, lemons, pineapples, strawberries, grapes, grapefruit, watermelons, limes, apples, tomatoes, pears, ginger, celery… and turn them into delicious and formless juice at their seating, an intake without no preservative. This nutritional benefits is making most restaurants to start having business relationship with produce wholesalers for the supply of their fresh fruits. This easy to operate utensil gives the restaurants everything they need to prepare fresh healthy juices. Easy to operate with no electricity needed. The freshly squeezed juice contains much more vitamins and Chlorophyll that are good for the body. Deluxe Type Hand Juicer is also the darlings of house ware utensils enabling the intake of fresh and non-additive juice anytime of the day at home. One can also use Deluxe type Hand Juicer for mashed potato. Simply boil the potato, then mash it with the juicer. To clean, wipe with damp cloth after wash and hang to dry. - -- rawlife - http://www.rawtimes.com/rawlife.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:49:57 -0700 From: Jo Yoshida Subject: Re: [rawlife] Healing with Living Foods E-zine >HEALING WITH LIVING FOODS March 27, 2002 Hi Val - thanks for posting your e-zine. Just a few queries... >3. THREE FOOD GROUPS FOR HUMANS -- FATS, FRUITS, GREENS > >Raw fats, fruits, greens daily are the Three Essentials to not only the >raw-food diet, but ANY diet. David Wolfe had the brilliance to see that >this is what successful raw foodists are doing globally. Would that group of raw food adherents also include those who consume raw animal fats? Would he be astute enough to acknowledge this segment? I'm asking rhetorically because obviously you won't know the answer without asking Mr. Wolfe himself; and it seems he's chosen not to address questions posed to him through this forum. >It was lovely for me to have my personal experience and teaching >corroborated by Wolfe. He writes in "The Sunfood Diet Success System" >(2000): > >"I do not know of another person who has communicated with as many >successful 100% raw-foodists as I have. In every single long-term >raw-foodist I've met, I discovered the following dietary patten: >green-leafy vegetables, sweet fruits, and fatty [plant] foods. Again, I'll assume, without skepticism, that Mr. Wolfe is speaking the truth (that he doesn't know of anyone else); but I still wonder whether if he's made any attempt to examine those who consume raw animal fats. >All three foods -- fats, fruits, greens -- may be eaten at the same meal. >Sweet and fat go beautifully together, e.g. banana and nuts. Forget the >food-combining rules when you're a raw foodist. They apply only to cooked >food. I've relaxed my food combining practice over the years but raw foods seem to mix better than cooked items. I still like to consume my fruits separately, or have them prior to concentrated foods. One exception to this is a blended drink of raw eggs and bananas. >7. GEMS FROM THE RAW FOOD BOOKS > >Victoria Boutenko (rawfamily.com) writes in her latest book "12 Steps to >Raw Foods - How to End Your Addiction to Cooked Food" that if you eat: > >50% raw food, you assimilate 0.3% of the food, >75% raw food, you assimilate 1.0% of the food, >99% raw food, you assimilate 3.0% of the food, >100% raw food, you assimilate 30.0% of the food. > >Wow! From 3% to 30% just by taking that last one percent jump into ALL RAW. >Victoria writes: "These are not precise numbers, but they do make sense and >if you ever go on raw foods you will know that they are true." In her book, does she provide a reference for these "not precise numbers?" Or did she derive them herself? if so, how were they measured? and what do these figures actually mean (30% of bio-available nutrients, of calories, etc)? There seems to be an order of magnitude improvement in assimilation when a person "improves" his diet from 99% to 100% raw. I'm not confident about the veracity of this claim. It sounds like junk science to me (but I'd love to review any evidence supporting such a claim). And by raw food, am I correct to assume that these were plant sources only? Did Ms. Boutenko mention exactly what these food items were? >Raw food recipe writer Rhio (rawfoodinfo.com) e-mailed me: "I've spoken to >many fruitarians that have lost their teeth. One prominent fruitarian >showed me all their recapped teeth -- 90% of their mouth." How many is "many?" A handful? dozen? hundred? Also, I'll assume the message should have been written as: "One prominent fruitarian showed me all his/her recapped teeth -- 90% of his/her mouth." Why not place a name to this prominent fruitarian so that those interested can contact this person and get information directly from the horses mouth (assuming the person in question hasn't died)? Again, all rhetorical questions, but do you see why raising the issue of dental problems experienced by fruitarians but not providing any means to verify the throwaway evidence is about as useful as a screen door in a submarine? >If you'd would like to buy for yourself, and then lend to me, any of the >following books to help me write my book "How To Heal With Living Foods," >I'd be most grateful for your kind assistance. I will mail the book back to >you within two weeks. Thank you! > >The books are, in order of desire: > >(1) Steve Meyerowitz: "Water: The Ultimate Cure" $8 at rawfood.com >(2) Mark A. Breiner: "Whole Body Dentistry" $20 at rawfood.com >(3) David Wolfe: "Eating for Beauty" $25 at rawfood.com >(4) Swami Rama, R. Ballentine, A. Hymes: "Science of Breath" $13 at >rawfood.com >(5) Roe Gallo: "Perfect Body, 2nd edit." $18 at roegallo.com >(6) Beth Montgomery: "Transitioning to Health - A Step-by-Step Guide for >You and Your Children" $14 at rawfood.com >(7) Rhio: "Hooked on Raw" $30 at rawfoodinfo.com >(8) Shazzie: "Shazzie's Detox Delights" $7 at rawfoodinfo.com >(9) Fred Patenaude: "The Sunfood Cuisine" $30 at sunfood.net >(10) Douglas Morrison: "How We Heal" $28 at amazon.com >(11) Any tapes or print materials from breathing.com. Val, I'm not familiar with your local library system but can you not request that some of these titles be brought in? Might be a more economical way to get what you need. And I'd also add these to your list: 12) Price, Weston; Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. 13) Schmid, Ronald; Traditional Foods Are Your Best Medicine. 14) Shelton, Herbert; Human Life: It's Philosophy and Laws. 15) Shelton, Herbert; Superior Nutrition. 16) Vonderplanitz, Aajonous; We Want To Live. 17) Day, Chet (publisher/editor); Health & Beyond (entire series in PDF format) http://chetday.com/hbclassics.htm 18) Alexander, Joe; Blatant Raw Foodist Propaganda. 19) Brooke, Sapoty; Eco-Eating. Cheers, Jo - -- - -- rawlife - http://www.rawtimes.com/rawlife.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:45:08 -0700 From: "Fabi A. Reaume" Subject: [rawlife] cravings I need some help with cravings and was wondering if I could get some help. This past Monday I got what most would call the stomach flu after eating a clove of garlic, and after being raw for 3 1/2 months. I was violently ill and I don't know if it was a healing crisis combined with it or what. To make a long story short, I could not digest anything for a few days and I had such low energy that walking to the kitchen for water was a lot of work. I am better today, but I am craving cooked food like crazy and questioning myself as to whether the diet is the right thing to do, whereas I did not before at all. I am also entering my monthly cycle and I feel very light headed. Does anyone also know of any specific foods that will help to eliminate any PMS problems once and for all? Sorry for the long question. Any help is much appreciated, Fabi - -- rawlife - http://www.rawtimes.com/rawlife.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:11:39 -0500 From: Bob Avery Subject: Re: [rawlife] breast is best, DSS This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ----__JNP_000_3fdf.4dbb.1e61 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jay, >The Branch Davidians were separatists too as much a degree >as was possible. They home schooled their children and >avoided the ways of the world as much as humanly possible. Since when is being different a crime? >I also have footage of David saying he had a Constitutional Right to arm >himself. This is correct. He did have that right. Read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. >It's just one of life's little inconsistencies, like Native >Americans, for example. Never has a group had it >made as much as Native Americans. If they live on >a reservation, they aren't even part of the United States. Supposedly, but I hear that the proposed mandatory vaccinations in California will apply to the Indians too. So much for being a separate country. They are a separate country only when it pleases the majority government to treat them that way. They were also separate nations when our forefathers massacred them by the millions. >Just plain stupid people, in my opinion. Stupid or ignorant? There's a difference. Most of us are ignorant people due to years of government school training and media brainwashing. Paul, >Thanks for the heads-up. I hate getting all that >marketing garbage. We can now all thank jr ellis that this newslist is paid for out of his own pocket, and we are not part of yahoo or any other commercial venture. Thanks again, jr! Ronn, > How could we possibly know how alien minds might work? To assume that >beings on another planet have the same concept of morality as we do, and that >as they evolve and become "enlightened" they also become more peaceful and >benevolent, is a lovely thought. But let's remember that this lovely thought >originated in a *human* mind. Life, morals, values and ultimate goals of >alien beings could very well be so different from ours as to be inconceivable >by us. Let's put it this way: If aliens were to have the same attitudes toward others species of animal life that humans do, they certainly wouldn't recognize any such thing as human rights. >as the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." (What does that say >about God??) Wow, what a thought! Don, >The Simpsons" -- a show with much hidden truth... Bob A. would get a kick out of it.) So I've been told by one of my friends who's a Simpsons addict, but I have yet to watch an episode. >"Oh my God, you can almost see her nipple through that blouse Where? Did I miss something? > I've been studying reality for over 28 years. Many people have been studying far longer with less to show for it. >If you remove the fiber, a nutrient that is needed by the body, how do you then wind up with "more" nutrients? Fiber goes in one end and out the other, and is thus not considered to a nutrient, but a tax on the body system. Some may be needed to assist peristalsys and feed friendly intestinal bacteria, but that doesn't mean we need lots and lots. Much of the food grown in today's soils does not contain the full complements of micronutrients, vitamins and minerals, our bodies need, so concentrating these micronutrients by juicing is one way of dealing with the problem. >The 2nd is not what allows people to carry a fire arm >for self protection. It is the 9th! If one bases their right on the >wrong amendment, they're toast. (9th = "The enumeration >in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be >construed to deny or disparage others retained by the >people." The right of self-protection cannot be denied.) Actually, not even the 9th is necessary. The whole Bill of Rights, including the 9th, is just a redundancy. The Constitution is only, and was intended to be only, a restriction on the activities of government, not a restriction on the activities of its citizens. In fact, it was argued by the opponents of the Bill of Rights that passing them would give citizens the wrong idea, that they were limited in their freedoms to only those rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. To counteract that false impression, the 9th Amendment was added to clarify the issue and allow the amendments to adopted. >Most judges will try and get you to traverse in to the court's >jurisdiction, but if you know what you're doing (and most >people don't), you can hold your ground. This is a little off-topic, but what tricks can they use, and how does one avoid them? >True, but they are not the best source IMO. The are super >low water content foods, and can contain tannic acid which >interferes with iron utilization (in addition to two other >nutrients which escape me at the moment). These antinutrients are neutralized by soaking overnight and rinsing, which also increases the water content. >True, fruits and veggies are not the same once they appear in the store, but water content is the issue with nuts. And if you're still concerned, you could drink some water or blenderize the nuts with water. Bob Avery - ----__JNP_000_3fdf.4dbb.1e61 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jay,
 
>The Branch Davidians were separatists too as much a degree
>= as=20 was possible. They home schooled their children and
>avoided the ways= of=20 the world as much as humanly possible.
 
Since when is being different a crime?
 
>I also have footage of David saying he had a Constitutional Right = to=20 arm
>himself.
 
This is correct.  He did have that right. Read the Constitution = and=20 the Federalist Papers.
 
>It's just one of life's little inconsistencies, like=20 Native
>Americans, for example. Never has a group had it
>made = as=20 much as Native Americans. If they live on
>a reservation, they aren't= even=20 part of the United States.
 
Supposedly, but I hear that the proposed mandatory vaccinations in=20 California will apply to the Indians too.  So much for being a = separate=20 country.  They are a separate country only when it pleases the = majority=20 government to treat them that way.  They were also separate nations = when=20 our forefathers massacred them by the millions.
 
>Just plain stupid people, in my opinion.
 
Stupid or ignorant?  There's a difference.  Most of us are=20 ignorant people due to years of government school training and media=20 brainwashing.
 
Paul,
 
>Thanks for the heads-up. I hate getting all that
>marketing= =20 garbage.
 
We can now all thank jr ellis that this newslist is paid for out of = his own=20 pocket, and we are not part of yahoo or any other commercial venture. = =20 Thanks again, jr!
 
Ronn,
 
>    How could we possibly know how alien minds = might=20 work? To assume that
>beings on another planet have the same concept= of=20 morality as we do, and that
>as they evolve and become "enlightened"= they=20 also become more peaceful and
>benevolent, is a lovely thought. But = let's=20 remember that this lovely thought
>originated in a *human* mind. = Life,=20 morals, values and ultimate goals of
>alien beings could very well = be so=20 different from ours as to be inconceivable
>by us.
 
Let's put it this way:  If aliens were to have the same attitudes= =20 toward others species of animal life that humans do, they certainly wouldn'= t=20 recognize any such thing as human rights.
 
>as the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." (What = does=20 that say
>about God??)
 
Wow, what a thought!
 
Don,
 
>The Simpsons" -- a show with much hidden truth... Bob A. would get= a=20 kick out of it.)
So I've been told by one of my friends who's a Simpsons addict, but I = have=20 yet to watch an episode.
 
>"Oh my God, you can almost see her nipple through that blouse
 
Where?  Did I miss something? 
 
> I've been studying reality for over 28 years.
 
Many people have been studying far longer with less to show for it.
 
>If you remove the fiber, a nutrient that is needed by the body, = how do=20 you then wind up with "more" nutrients?
 
Fiber goes in one end and out the other, and is thus not considered to= a=20 nutrient, but a tax on the body system.  Some may be needed to assist= =20 peristalsys and feed friendly intestinal bacteria, but that doesn't mean we= need=20 lots and lots.
 
Much of the food grown in today's soils does not contain the full=20 complements of micronutrients, vitamins and minerals, our bodies need, so=20 concentrating these micronutrients by juicing is one way of dealing with = the=20 problem.
 
>The 2nd is not what allows people to carry a fire arm
>for self protection. It is the 9th! If one bases their right on = the=20
>wrong amendment, they're toast. (9th =3D "The enumeration
>in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
>people." The right of self-protection cannot be denied.)
 
Actually, not even the 9th is necessary.  The whole Bill of = Rights,=20 including the 9th, is just a redundancy.  The Constitution is only, = and was=20 intended to be only, a restriction on the activities of government, not a=20 restriction on the activities of its citizens.  In fact, it was argued= by=20 the opponents of the Bill of Rights that passing them would give citizens = the=20 wrong idea, that they were limited in their freedoms to only those rights=20 spelled out in the Bill of Rights.  To counteract that false = impression,=20 the 9th Amendment was added to clarify the issue and allow the amendments = to=20 adopted.
 
>Most judges will try and get you to traverse in to the court's
>jurisdiction, but if you know what you're doing (and most
>people don't), you can hold your ground.
 
This is a little off-topic, but what tricks can they use, and how does= one=20 avoid them?
 
>True, but they are not the best source IMO. The are super
>low water content foods, and can contain tannic acid which
>interferes with iron utilization (in addition to two other
>nutrients which escape me at the moment).
 
These antinutrients are neutralized by soaking overnight and rinsing, = which=20 also increases the water content.
 
>True, fruits and veggies are not the same once they appear in the= =20 store, but water content is the issue with nuts.
 
And if you're still concerned, you could drink some water or = blenderize the=20 nuts with water.
 
Bob Avery
- ----__JNP_000_3fdf.4dbb.1e61-- ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - -- rawlife - http://www.rawtimes.com/rawlife.html ------------------------------ End of rawlife-digest V1 #940 ***************************** --- ******************* END OF POST ****************************** RAWLIFE-DIGEST - faq at http://www.rawtimes.com/rawlife.html