So the safety concern and subsequent ban of mercury amalgam dentistry in Denmark, Norway and Sweden is unsubstantiated? Ocean mercury load aside (whether organically bound/complexed), for me (and many others), dental amalgams remain a safety risk and my intent is to minimise heavy metal exposure by having them correctly removed and the residue carefully chelated with the most natural means. Furthermore, on the matter of the oceans, aren't there many more inorganic/organic molecules in that ecosystem that weren't around at the time of our paleolithic/hominid genome development. I'm all for advocating these counter-counter arguments, but when there's some substance in the original argument, I don't easily dismiss it. Once again, I suppose efficacy rules and I do value your experiences/insights...
If you look at the hard data, you'll find that mercury produced via humans since the industrial age is a microscopic fraction of the total amount of natural mercury found in the Earth's oceans and elsewhere. So, if mercury is so toxic, one would naturally expect all the fish to have neurological issues not just today but in pre-palaeo times as well, which is absurd. What I find truly amusing though is that anti-mercury campaigners ignore such obvious facts such as that the oceans contain similiar tiny traces of all disssolved substances, including uranium. But they never seem to go on about the dangers of radioactivity in the world's oceans. I suppose that's because any claims re radioactivity in seafood would be easily debunked with geiger counters, but claims of nonexistent neurological defects are more difficult to counter.
Danger of absolute perfection? I agree that there are no absolutes nor any true ideological definition of perfection, but I prefer to propose "best endeavour", particularly on account of those healing a chronic or terminal condition. Naturally, we recount stories of natural lifeforms trekking/migrating for large portions of their life to secure their optimal nutrition, so maybe in Western civilisation, this notion is skewed somewhat.
Well, I see your point, if you're in really bad shape it makes sense to try everything, even if you know that most methods will fail. I was much like that up to and early on in the diet.
Awkward results and social complications? As The Doors' Jim Morrison said "Where's your will to be weird?" and maybe some other cliches. Ultimately, I only embraced the raw eating style on account of my subversiveness. Surely, living peoples' projections of what one is socially-accepted to do is undermining to one's own intuitive course? Aren't people doing what they desire like buying into destructive food industries, so they can satisfy their materialistic obligations projected upon them by their equally-soulless peers (a la covert peer pressure). Best to embrace intellectual anarchy to some extent, as a means for self-realisation (of course, be surrendering, hehe). Maybe there're some RAFers around here that take their raw animal meals to work in opaque lunch boxes, or try to gently introduce unsuspecting ones, I don't know...Tiny minds everywhere is my (non-judgemental, hehe) observation...
(http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/niceism.htm)
Well, I'm an anarchist too, I just think one has to be realistic sometimes. I mean, my life at work was made easier at times because I compromised by bringing in raw fruit and raw honeycomb for lunch-time instead of raw meat(or "high-meat", for that matter!)
I still wonder what your advice would be to someone experiencing acute biliary attacks with strong admonition from orthodox medicine to tear out the defective (and apparently needless, yet systemically critical) organ...;-))
If the organ was completely crippled(eg:- full-on cirrhosis), then I'd imagine that liver-flushes and the like wouldn't be enough to solve the problem, so then I'd recommend surgery. Anything less damaging ought to be solved by diet. By all means carry on with the liver-flushes, I don't think they do much harm (or good), I just view the raw diet as the main contributor to health.
