Has anyone tried this cold-packed raw honey? It's cheaper than Really Raw honey.

http://www.vitaglo.com/swwiofearawh.htmll

I haven't tried it, but I've seen it on Aajonus' list of producers.

I find the price on that VitaGlo website suspiciously low. The website of the producer is:

http://www.earlvillefarms.com/

A 5-pound jar costs $70, and if you buy 6 jars, the cost is $53 per 5 pounds.

VitaGlo sells a 5-pound jar for $35. How can they do this without losing money?

If you're looking for a good price on unheated honey, it's hard to beat Honey Pacifica.

I don't understand why some unheated honeys (such as S.W. of Earlville, or Volcano Island Honey) are so expensive, while others (such as Honey Pacifica) are so cheap.

Person below me wants to farm their own meat one day

True. (But it will take a while before that becomes reality).

The person below me has never had a fresh date-fruit.

False. In the summer, I found imported fresh dates at a fruit market. They were rock-hard, and took about a month to ripen. They were delicious.


Person below me farms their own meat right now.

On a serious note, I understand Eric's concern, especially since he used his real full name. I certainly wouldn't want a google search on my last name to show a web page about raw meat eating.

I doubt celery is any good. It is one of the few foods with negative calories, last I checked. My choice for raw veg would be things like raw radishes, raw carrots, raw cucumbers, raw avocadoes and the like, to be honest.

OH, and I would strongly suggest that you eat raw solid fruits and veg. Veggie-juice is the 2nd most complained about food on a RVAF diet. It is suspected that shredding the cell-walls in this way not only makes the nutrients in veg more bioavailable, but also the antinutrients as well, thus causing nutritional deficiencies in some people over time.

For all practical purposes, celery, cucumbers, and radishes all have zero calories. So why single out celery as being bad?

I find it hard to eat radishes, since they are usually very hot and spicy. This might be an indicator of anti-nutrients.

Do you have any links to this Kurite? I've never heard squash called a nightshade before and I'm not finding anything other than a few people speculating online with a search. AFAIK it's a part of the gourd family along with melons, cucumbers, etc.
I agree juicing isn't a great idea though.

You're right, squashes are not nightshades. I've recently been eating raw butternut squash. I also tried some cooked butternut squash. Even though squash is usually thought of as something that must be cooked to be edible, I actually like the raw squash better. It has a nice crunchy texture, whereas cooked squash is mushy and tastes to me like baby food.

I am getting hooked up with a guy at my school whos uncle is a butcher and he can get me brains (which are illegal here)

What kind of brains? I've bought lamb, goat, and pig brains before. I think that only beef brains are illegal.

Ontario sucks for getting organs, i want to go to alberta where the people run the place, not a retarded gooooverment.

I've also had a hard time getting organs. I bought a whole beef, and explicitly asked for ALL the organs. I just got 7 pounds liver, kidneys, heart, and tongue. Nothing else. It was disappointing. In Alberta, things aren't much better. Take a look at this recent story:

http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/more-on-that-forcible-seizure-of-raw-milk-near-edmonton-by-agriculture-ministry-offical-backed-by-police/

But even if the government decided to drop all the restrictions on organ meats, I doubt that it would become much easier to obtain them. There is very little demand. In the US, it's much easier. Places such as Slankers, NorthStar bison, and US Wellness ship fat and organs everywhere in the US.

I also find that mosquitoes don't bother me much. Probably because a good diet causes the immune system to function properly.

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/journals/sully%27s-journal/msg40169/#msg40169

In Canada, the hysteria is not about malaria, but west nile virus. I don't worry about it at all.

I've considered the idea of living in the wild. But I don't want to completely remove myself from society. As a first step, I would like to take a vacation from society, and live in the wild for a short while. But this isn't practical for me right now. I'm a student. Maybe in the summer I can take a month off, but not much longer.

I think that living on a farm is a good compromise between nature and society.

I'm too shy to post a photo, but my build is somewhere in between that of Miles and Hannibal.

I added raw milk to my raw paleo/primal diet this past spring. I buy 12 litres a week. I find it very beneficial, and don't experience any negative effects.

I think that in general, raw milk is a beneficial food for adult mammals, and that adult mammals who can't tolerate raw milk are the exception, not the rule. I know that such a view won't be very popular here. I came to it after thinking about the Pottenger cat feeding experiment, which demonstrates that raw milk has no negative effects on cats:

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/primal-diet/av-on-radio-on-the-web-link/msg43742/#msg43742

Tyler says that Pottenger can't be trusted. I'd be interested to know what others think.

do you have a link for cod liver oil being toxic? i've never tried it but was thinking of getting some blue ice fermented stuff just to try it out. not a good idea? what's the issue with it?

The Weston A. Price Foundation has lots of good articles about cod liver oil:

http://www.westonaprice.org/cod-liver-oil.html

In a nutshell, their claim is that CLO is toxic only if the vitA and vitD are tampered with, and that natural unprocessed CLO is fine to take in large amounts.

There are two separate issues here:

1. collecting funds to sue the government for the illegal raid and theft of food

2. collecting funds to defend against the "violation of building safety" claim.

From what I understand, Aajonus is giving money only for #1, but not for #2

Here's an excerpt from one of his recent emails:

"Your donations are to offensively and defensively protect the rights of members to own, distribute and collect healthy food under Constitutional means and for no other purpose. Right To Choose Healthy Food Trust has no investment or equity in any property. Therefore any property problems with government, such as building and safety issues has nothing to do directly with rights to healthy food. To use such donated funds to resolve property and building and safety issues could be considered misappropriation of funds and exhaust funds for defending farmers and clubs rights to healthy food. At the Rawesome Club at Venice, CA, James Stewart built all buildings without permits and may not be permitted to use any of those buildings. His hiring attorneys to handle that situation is not related to Rawesome members' ability to acquire or transport healthy food.  Rawesome may function at any location where building permits were obtained."

Maybe try eating the fat of different animals, and see which one agrees with you best. Pork fat is quite soft and tasty and chewy.

Also, try different temperatures -- straight out of fridge, or room temperature. I find that beef muscle fat and suet is too hard in the fridge, but just right at room temperature. For veal marrow from the shank, I find that it's too oily and soft at room temperature, but just right at fridge temperature.

Quality also makes a big difference. I find that fat from supermarket meat is not very appetizing, but fat from organic butchers or small local farms is quite delicious.

Michaelwh,
Thanks for the further delineation on the subject. I've read a few books on the subject. Candice Pert "The Molecules of Emotion" and "The Human Genome Project".

Thanks for the book recommendations. I read a few reviews of Candice Pert's book, and plan to buy it. Who are the authors of "The Human Genome Project"? I found a few different books with that same title.

By the way, an interesting modern book that makes the case for a pleomorphic view of bacteria, is "A New Bacteriology" by Sonea and Panisset. Their main argument is that bacteria have numerous mechanisms for very quickly changing their DNA and responding to the environment, and that they should not be classified as individual species, but instead be thought of as constituents of one earth-wide "super-organism". This super-organism is what James Lovelock would call "Gaia".

I stand by my first conclusion. This man is making a living with molecular biology. If people dis' him and his technology in favour of a simpler way of life, he is out of a job.

This reductionistic information may be fascinating, but unfortunately when he waxes poetic, he forgets to mention that this technology is also used to produce GMO foods. Eventually what he is up to is playing God with the food supply. From what I heard, he was saying he has even grander plans for mobilizing his Frankenstein experiments on the public. Unfortunately this clown and his associates have convinced governments that these foods and other manipulations of human beings be allowed to be sold to the general public who believe that our elected officials are keeping us all safe. We cannot even see a label that says we are buying GMO or irradiated foods in Canada. We are all part of a Frankestein experiment conducted by this man and his ilk, who from the soundtrack on the video believes he is just that little bit more intelligent than the minions that surround him as he walks down the street.

I agree. Unfortunately, many people sincerely believe that GMOs are the solution to world hunger. I worked through a standard first-year undergrad biology textbook. It had a chapter on genetic engineering. It explained how GMOs such as "golden rice" were developed, and how such innovations have the potential to end world hunger, and make us all healthier. At the very end of the chapter, it was very briefly mentioned that GMOs have received opposition. I was horrified. This stuff is taught to first-year undergrads, and most of them will believe this without questioning.

Science and technology is a double-edged sword. Not only in biology. For example, understanding nuclear physics was a wonderful intellectual accomplishment, but unfortunately, it led to horrible weapons of mass destruction.

I like the way you described "obvious quakery" If I read you right you are saying that obvious quakery to one man is the truth to another. Very eloquently said. You posted it as I was about to reply.

Yes, that's what I meant.

I read a book on Pasteur and he was a brilliant man. He made some very important discoveries in a world where religion had a liplock on the truth with "Spontaneous Generation", the nonsense of the Catholic church. Now we have moved on and taken this reductionism too far in the other direction.

Which book was this? As I said in my earlier post, many of Pasteur's discoveries, including the abolishment of spontaneous generation, were  partly or fully plagiarized from Bechamp. The book by Marie Nonclercq explains this in detail. If you don't read French, and don't want to spend hours with a dictionary, the following English books also explain this:

Bechamp or Pasteur? A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology
by Ethel Douglas Hume

Pasteur: Plagiarist, Impostor : The Germ Theory Exploded
by R. B. Pearson

(on Amazon, you can get both of these in a single volume)

As for spontaneous generation -- actually, we know from high-energy particle physics that a particle-antiparticle pair CAN in fact be "spontaneously generated". But this is very different from what was meant by "spontaneous generation" in the 19th century.

And when people on this forum begin advocating for obvious quackery like germ theory denialism, it makes it very challenging for normal folks like myself to keep our accounts active on this website.  I wish we had a way of moderating comments and threads...

I never said that I'm a "germ theory denialist", or that Bechamp was right about everything. I merely pointed out the factual inaccuracies in the video. I certainly agree that it is difficult to reconcile pleomorphism with modern microbiology. But I don't think that pleomorphism has been rigorously disproved. I think that it's fair to say, that pleomorphism is "in limbo".

Much of the research on pleomorphism was done using optical microscopes, observing living cells. This went out of style when the electron microscope came on the scene, and allowed much higher magnifications. But unfortunately, the electron microscope cannot observe living cells. Making observations with an electron microscope is very complicated. There's a long list of procedures, which include dehydration, fixation, and applying strong reagents. Hillman and Sartory did some comparisons of light microscopy vs electron microscopy on neurological tissue, and found important discrepancies. They wrote a whole bunch of books and papers on this topic.

As for the germ theory, and the way in which it is applied by modern medicine -- it reminds me of the epicycle theory of the solar system -- it can describe the observed phenomena, but it "places the wrong thing at the center of the stage", and is consequently very awkward and convoluted. I think that anybody who eats high meat on a regular basis would agree with this.

I see no need to delete PrimalLadyRosy's post. If you think it's "obvious quackery", then ignore it. There have been plenty of controversial discussions on this board which have been called "obvious quackery" (for example, vaccines and autism). The term "obvious quackery" is quite subjective, so I don't think we should delete or moderate posts on this basis alone.