disturbing interview

[Guest guest]

> RawSeattle , cloudriver wrote:

> I, frankly, am disappointed and a little disturbed

> by Frederic's and Nazariah's now advocating eating meat.

 

Hi Annette,

 

They are not advocating meat. They advocate a raw vegetarian

diet, with small amounts of fermented dairy and/or organic eggs from

free-range chickens.

 

Mike

 

http://www.essene.org/Jesus_Diet.htm

" THE JESUS DIET

by Rev. Brother Nazariah, D.D.

" ... Let us begin by establishing the fact that Jesus made

vegetarianism a requirement of discipleship and that he was himself a

vegetarian. "

 

http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/interview-nazariah.html

" ... What is your background with the raw food diet?

I'm 46 now and I've been a vegetarian since I was 17. At that age, I

not only became a vegetarian but also a raw foodist. ...

.... So what I advocate now is that people become vegetarians, not

vegans. "

[Guest guest]

Here is a thought on the interview from Jinjee:

 

>>Re Naz's article, even though my personal experience has been

opposite to his and I and everyone in my immediate family seem to

thrive ridiculously on a non-supplemented 100% raw vegan diet, I

think that Naz's points may have some validity.

 

>>Here's the thing he wrote that really grabbed me:

 

>> " But you don't just go from a meat eating species to all of a

sudden being a vegan species without a lot of traumatic problems. So

I advise a more intermediate step. Let's first evolve into being

vegetarians for a number of generations, then let's evolve into

veganism and let evolution happen in that way " .

 

>>In this he may be right. It is also interesting because it shows

that deep down inside he still believes in the " rightness " of

veganism. He believes that this is where we will evolve to

eventually.

 

>>I believe that I and my family will always thrive on a 100% raw

diet and I don't anticipate any problems and I believe that we will

always be 100% raw vegan. But perhaps it is " belief " that is the key

here. If we believe that we will thrive, we will. If we are looking

for a way out of the diet, if we don't really want to do it in our

hearts, then that is the information that will come to us. There is

plenty of " evidence " on both sides of the issue, everywhere.

 

>>My thinking is that science is still in its infancy, and therefore

very inaccurate, especially in the fields of nutrition, biology and

medicine which are largely supported by multi-billion dollar profit-

motivated corporate interests. The truth on these matters is very

difficult to get at and discern. My answer to this problem is to go

with your own personal experience. Try it. If it works for you, it

works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. You have to take it back to basic

common sense. You have to trust your own experience more than you

trust anything you see in print.

 

>>My friend Anahata believes that the raw vegan diet is only for

those who need to vibrate on a high frequency to do their work in

the world. She believes that different types of work require you to

vibrate on different frequencies, and that this requires different

diets. That actually resonates with me.

 

>>Quantum Physics illustrates a new scientific discovery that the

smallest central part of a molecule is able to be directed by our

will, and responds to our expectations. This gels with my spiritual

outlook that we co-create reality with God. We have a much smaller

but very powerful and important part in this creativity. And I

wonder sometimes if maybe the collective consciousness of humankind

on this planet is in a quantum way even changing the very molecular

structure of foods and chemicals, affecting what kind of a diet is

the healthiest.

 

Please feel free to share the above with others who may be

interested.<<

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Mike. I stand corrected. I thought I remembered reading that

Frédéric was now eating meat for " protein. " I've been mistaken

before. I know that he's writing a new book on how he's discovered

that being 100% raw [supposedly] isn't the answer. I went to his web

site to see if there was mentioned of meat. I only found references

to his now eating cooked food in his article " Fanaticism in the Raw

Food Movement. "

 

http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/Fanaticism.html

 

Annette

 

 

RawSeattle , " Mike " <snyder68@h...> wrote:

 

> Hi Annette,

>

> They are not advocating meat. They advocate a raw vegetarian

> diet, with small amounts of fermented dairy and/or organic eggs

from free-range chickens.

>

> Mike

[Guest guest]

>Here's the thing he wrote that really grabbed me:

>> " But you don't just go from a meat eating species to all of a

sudden being a vegan species without a lot of traumatic problems. So

I advise a more intermediate step. Let's first evolve into being

vegetarians for a number of generations, then let's evolve into

veganism and let evolution happen in that way " .

 

Not to offer any insult to Jinjee, but if this is the most convincing part

of the Nazarian article, I'm glad I didn't waste my time reading the whole

thing. What an incredibly ridiculous statement. Eating meat DOES make us a

" meat-eating species " in the most literal sense, since we are a species and

we do eat meat. But our brief forays (in geologic terms) into meat eating

didn't make us carnivores, or even omnivores. If I take a 4-month nap

during the winter does that make me a bear? I think it would make me DEAD,

which is the same effect that eating meat has on a large percentage of our

population. Does this guy expect us to believe that nature would play a low

trick on us like giving us anatomical faculties that are perfectly suited to

fruit consumption, but nutritional requirements that are only satisfied by

animal consumption? If we were carnivores, wouldn't we look like

carnivores? Wouldn't we have the claws, digestive enzymes, vision and

auditory capabilities, teeth and intestines of carnivores (or even

omnivores), among a thousand other attritubes? The above statement has to

be the craziest attempt to justify meat or dairy consumption I've ever

seen. Geez, if he wants to eat it why doesn't he just eat it and forget

trying to legitimize it. It's almost embarrassing to point out his errors,

he makes it so easy.

 

Nora

[Guest guest]

>If I take a 4-month nap during the winter does that make me a

>bear? I think it would make me DEAD,

 

LOL!

 

I realize that may not have been meant as humor, but it caught me

funny and cracked me up!

 

Thanks for the laugh Nora!

 

Thanks for the rest of the post too. You make some good points. I

noted that same line, but didn't reply about it. How many millions of

years were we here before we discovered weapons and fire to really

shift our diets? THAT is where the real shifts in our diets was!

 

Jeff

 

 

[Guest guest]

hi everyone...

here's the brixman's take on the ''disturbing interview''

 

norm )~

 

...... raw food, simply wonderful .....

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

As some of you know, I am a quality-nut about fruits and vegetables.

Most

of you will say, " Aha!---this means I should eat animal products. "

However I, myself, think the article more clearly illustrates that

Nazariah was eating low-quality vegetative shit(*) instead of good food.

 

To this day I doubt the poor guy knows just how dangerous it is to eat

low-quality garbage. He needs to read more Dr. Albrecht so he knows

where

superior protein comes from. To learn what is really going on in

nutrition, all you really have to do is visit a couple of dozen farms

and

notice that sickly animals are raised on poor quality pasture and super

 

high-quality pasture produces extremely fine critters.

 

<URL: http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/interview-nazariah.html >

 

Regards,

Rex Harrill

 

(*) My term for the low-brix foods sold in both main-stream groceries

and

" organic " stores, i.e., trash all.

[Guest guest]

It doesn't take generations of gradual change, one person can in

their lifetime make a gradual change, detoxify along the way and

enjoy the rest of their life in superior health. The longer the time

in making the change, the more hereditary damage will be passed on to

the next generation. I can't imagine a father telling a son, " We've

been vegetarians for several generations, so you should now become a

vegan. " The reality of the situation is that usually when someone is

experiencing health problems or has been handed a death sentence from

a doctor due to a degenerative disease, then they get motivated to

make changes for the better.

 

P.S. Besides the meat-eating species, let's not forget the junk food

species, the coffee-drinking species, the soft drink-drinking

species, etc.

 

Ron Koenig

 

> >Here's the thing he wrote that really grabbed me:

> >> " But you don't just go from a meat eating species to all of a

> sudden being a vegan species without a lot of traumatic problems. So

> I advise a more intermediate step. Let's first evolve into being

> vegetarians for a number of generations, then let's evolve into

> veganism and let evolution happen in that way " .

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Annette,

 

Making it to your 70s is not all that impressive. The average life expectancy

of Americans is around 77. The Japanese, Australians and a few others have a

life expectancy of around 80. As Nazariah says, where are the 90 or 100 year

old raw vegans?

 

Mark

 

cloudriver

RawSeattle

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:56 AM

Re: Fw: [RawSeattle] disturbing interview

 

 

What about Fred Bisci? Isn't he in his 70s? It seems there was

another older gentleman interviewed in Paul Nison's book ....

 

Annette

 

 

RawSeattle , " Mark Hovila " <hovila@c...> wrote:

 

> Overall, I thought the interview raised some really good points,

especially the one about the lack of old raw vegans. Does anybody

know of any?

>

> Mark

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I took a look at this article, and it's really not too far off from my

feelings, or those stated by Victoria. It is very true that a person needs

to find balance in their lives, and needs to feel comfortable with whatever

it is they are doing. If they are struggling to stay 100% raw and are just

not finding that balance in their lives, but feel more comfortable with

adding back a touch of cooked foods, like brown rice or steamed veggies,

that should not be the proverbial end of the world, they should not be made

to feel as if they were failures. Yet some of the more radical books tend

to give that impression, that it's " all or nothing " .

 

It is also true that there is not a lot of research to back up the claims

that are made in the raw food movement. Some of the people who write the

books offer their opinions and beliefs as proven facts, which they are not.

I recently responded to a raw vegan article in the newsletter of the

Vegetarian Practice Group of the American Dietetics Association. In that

response (to which I have not received a response from the author) I

acknowledged that this lack of research leaves the movement ripe for

misinformation and outright quackery. In the mainstream medical world,

everything (supposedly, ideally) is backed up by research. In the cooked

vegetarian/vegan movement, again, everything is (ideally) backed by

research, although I have reason to question some of the research. (One

always must examine the methods, sources, etc. to determine if the research

was conducted according to certain standards.) But in the raw movement,

there just isn't much available, certainly nothing regarding long-term

effectiveness, nutritional adequacy, safety, or influence on children's

growth and development. The " gold standard " of research is that the

research be conducted in a nonbiased manner, that it be done recently, and

that it be repeatable with the same results.

 

I believe that Frederic is advocating acceptance of wherever a person is in

their dietary transitional choices, which I think we all can agree with. If

a person does fine on raw foods (my husband and myself are doing fine,

except for my teeth), that's great. If not, and they need to back off to a

75% raw diet with the addition of some healthy cooked foods too, that needs

to be accepted as well. They are still doing better, dietarily, than the

majority of the American public!! (You should see some of the diet recalls

that I see...very frightening to see what people are predominantly basing

their diets on. Our immigrant families, esp. first generations, aren't

eating like that, it's just the established American families that are doing

that.)

 

Sue

 

his article " Fanaticism in the Raw

Food Movement. "

 

http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/Fanaticism.html

[Guest guest]

>P.S. Besides the meat-eating species, let's not forget the junk food

>species, the coffee-drinking species, the soft drink-drinking

>species, etc.

 

....alcohol drinking, salt eating, red dye #2 eating, yellow #40

eating, preservative eating...

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nora, please without emotions, what about these facts:

 

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/ancient_dietary_wisdom.html

 

 

 

Nora Lenz <nmlenz wrote:

>Here's the thing he wrote that really grabbed me:

>> " But you don't just go from a meat eating species to all of a

sudden being a vegan species without a lot of traumatic problems. So

I advise a more intermediate step. Let's first evolve into being

vegetarians for a number of generations, then let's evolve into

veganism and let evolution happen in that way " .

 

Not to offer any insult to Jinjee, but if this is the most convincing part

of the Nazarian article, I'm glad I didn't waste my time reading the whole

thing. What an incredibly ridiculous statement. Eating meat DOES make us a

" meat-eating species " in the most literal sense, since we are a species and

we do eat meat. But our brief forays (in geologic terms) into meat eating

didn't make us carnivores, or even omnivores. If I take a 4-month nap

during the winter does that make me a bear? I think it would make me DEAD,

which is the same effect that eating meat has on a large percentage of our

population. Does this guy expect us to believe that nature would play a low

trick on us like giving us anatomical faculties that are perfectly suited to

fruit consumption, but nutritional requirements that are only satisfied by

animal consumption? If we were carnivores, wouldn't we look like

carnivores? Wouldn't we have the claws, digestive enzymes, vision and

auditory capabilities, teeth and intestines of carnivores (or even

omnivores), among a thousand other attritubes? The above statement has to

be the craziest attempt to justify meat or dairy consumption I've ever

seen. Geez, if he wants to eat it why doesn't he just eat it and forget

trying to legitimize it. It's almost embarrassing to point out his errors,

he makes it so easy.

 

Nora

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sue,

Those are excellent observations. When viewing reports it is also extremely

important that you look for all FIVE components of the scientific method.

 

Purpose

Research

Hypothesis

Experiment

Conclusions

 

Quite often the first 2 items are left out of scientific reports, but what you

see depends on what you're looking at and why. My Mom, a registered nurse and

survivor of cancer (by chemotherapy) challenges my preventive health views and

defends commercial medicine by saying that it is " scientific " . And she is right

- but their scientific purpose is profit-making.

 

Nickolas Hein

Morgantown WV

-

Sue Aberle

RawSeattle

Thursday, May 13, 2004 8:26 AM

RE: [RawSeattle] Re: disturbing interview

 

 

I took a look at this article, and it's really not too far off from my

feelings, or those stated by Victoria. It is very true that a person needs

to find balance in their lives, and needs to feel comfortable with whatever

it is they are doing. If they are struggling to stay 100% raw and are just

not finding that balance in their lives, but feel more comfortable with

adding back a touch of cooked foods, like brown rice or steamed veggies,

that should not be the proverbial end of the world, they should not be made

to feel as if they were failures. Yet some of the more radical books tend

to give that impression, that it's " all or nothing " .

 

It is also true that there is not a lot of research to back up the claims

that are made in the raw food movement. Some of the people who write the

books offer their opinions and beliefs as proven facts, which they are not.

I recently responded to a raw vegan article in the newsletter of the

Vegetarian Practice Group of the American Dietetics Association. In that

response (to which I have not received a response from the author) I

acknowledged that this lack of research leaves the movement ripe for

misinformation and outright quackery. In the mainstream medical world,

everything (supposedly, ideally) is backed up by research. In the cooked

vegetarian/vegan movement, again, everything is (ideally) backed by

research, although I have reason to question some of the research. (One

always must examine the methods, sources, etc. to determine if the research

was conducted according to certain standards.) But in the raw movement,

there just isn't much available, certainly nothing regarding long-term

effectiveness, nutritional adequacy, safety, or influence on children's

growth and development. The " gold standard " of research is that the

research be conducted in a nonbiased manner, that it be done recently, and

that it be repeatable with the same results.

 

I believe that Frederic is advocating acceptance of wherever a person is in

their dietary transitional choices, which I think we all can agree with. If

a person does fine on raw foods (my husband and myself are doing fine,

except for my teeth), that's great. If not, and they need to back off to a

75% raw diet with the addition of some healthy cooked foods too, that needs

to be accepted as well. They are still doing better, dietarily, than the

majority of the American public!! (You should see some of the diet recalls

that I see...very frightening to see what people are predominantly basing

their diets on. Our immigrant families, esp. first generations, aren't

eating like that, it's just the established American families that are doing

that.)

 

Sue

 

his article " Fanaticism in the Raw

Food Movement. "

 

http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/Fanaticism.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

And how!! Sometimes one just needs to see who funded the research to see

how biased it is. I am bothered by the fact that my national professional

organization (American Dietetic Association) accepts funding from industry,

and regularly publishes " nutrition fact sheets " funded by the industry (like

the soft drink industry, the sugar industry, even Monsanto), and these

always put a positive " spin " on whatever nutritional debate issue is being

presented. The one sponsored by Monsanto, of course, touted the benefits of

GMO's, and the one sponsored by the soft drink industry stated that soft

drinks " fit well into a well balanced diet " . These are all photocopy ready

to use for " patient education " , and we can make as many copies as we want to

give out. There was even a full-page ad for Mars Chocolate, disguised as a

research article, complete with references!!

 

Sue

 

defends commercial medicine by saying that it is " scientific " . And she is

right - but their scientific purpose is profit-making.

[Guest guest]

> Making it to your 70s is not all that impressive. The average life

> expectancy of Americans is around 77

 

i agree mark but how many of those people are being kept alive with

medications

 

norm )~

 

...... raw food, simply wonderful .....

[Guest guest]

Sue,

It's helpful to remember that at one time the tobacco industry advertised that

cigarette smoking was healthful because it helped you relax. My father, an MD

and the best country doctor that ever lived, bought this until it was too late

and then convinced himself that it was OK to keep smoking because that way he

would die before mom so that he wouldn't be a burden to her.

 

The upshot of all this though is that they get away with this stuff when we let

them. " They " may be the problem, but we have the solution.

 

Nickolas Hein

Morgantown WV

-

Sue Aberle

RawSeattle

Friday, May 14, 2004 8:22 AM

RE: [RawSeattle] Re: disturbing interview

 

 

And how!! Sometimes one just needs to see who funded the research to see

how biased it is. I am bothered by the fact that my national professional

organization (American Dietetic Association) accepts funding from industry,

and regularly publishes " nutrition fact sheets " funded by the industry (like

the soft drink industry, the sugar industry, even Monsanto), and these

always put a positive " spin " on whatever nutritional debate issue is being

presented. The one sponsored by Monsanto, of course, touted the benefits of

GMO's, and the one sponsored by the soft drink industry stated that soft

drinks " fit well into a well balanced diet " . These are all photocopy ready

to use for " patient education " , and we can make as many copies as we want to

give out. There was even a full-page ad for Mars Chocolate, disguised as a

research article, complete with references!!

 

Sue

 

defends commercial medicine by saying that it is " scientific " . And she is

right - but their scientific purpose is profit-making.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yes, Nick -

 

I remember when I was pregnant the first time, I was reading a book by a

well-respected pregnancy doctor at the time, Alan Guttmacher. He actually

advised pregnant ladies who were constipated to relax by smoking a cigarette

while on the toilet. I am continually amazed at the diverse advice given to

smoking pregnant women today - some doctors actually tell their patients

that it's harder on them (and the baby) to stop smoking than to continue

smoking, while others strongly recommend that the patients quit smoking and

give them helpful guidance on how to quit. I also remember the ads from the

late 1950's and early 1960's (oops, I'm dating myself here...) for

cigarettes, which claimed that " 4 out of 5 doctors recommend XX brand of

cigarettes for their patients " , and I have read that the AMA was regularly

accepting money from the tobacco industry at the time. (Much as they

currently accept money from other industries whose products are detrimental

to the health of their patients.)

 

The best part of the solution is education. We have an uphill battle to

fight. I constantly feel like I'm swimming upstream at work, trying to

fight the messages that the corporate interests put out to consumers. I see

so many immigrant families who come here eating healthy, and then they adopt

the American dietary and lifestyle, and they rapidly gain weight, and before

you know it the parents have diabetes, and the kids weight 60# at 4 years

old. (Yes!!) When I ask them how they ate in their home countries, I

invariably hear that they ate fresh foods, they cooked at home every day,

there was no fast food, pop, or chips; they ate 3 meals and then were done,

no snacking in between; they didn't sit around watching TV, nor did they

drive everywhere, they were out walking. The messages that they hear on

American television are powerful, and a lot of the immigrant families learn

their English from TV. So I suppose it's no wonder that they then adopt the

toxic health habits of Americans. (And you should hear the words coming out

of the mouths of kids who learned their English from TV!!)

 

Sue

 

 

It's helpful to remember that at one time the tobacco industry advertised

that cigarette smoking was healthful because it helped you relax. My

father, an MD and the best country doctor that ever lived, bought this until

it was too late and then convinced himself that it was OK to keep smoking

because that way he would die before mom so that he wouldn't be a burden to

her.

 

The upshot of all this though is that they get away with this stuff when we

let them. " They " may be the problem, but we have the solution.