The moccasins are "Minnetonka", which must be some sweatshop somewhere because there's a huge number of online stores selling them.

http://www.minnetonka-by-mail.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=231 are what I bought. I cut off the frills because, well, they're frills for god's sake, and have been wearing them everywhere. My wife got a pair and runs in them. (she left the frills on)

IF you buy a pair of these you'll know what I'm talking about re: ripoff. This is literally a leather footwrap with about 1/8" of foam in the bottom. I could easily replicate the cuts necessary. I think you can buy a side of leather for around $75, which is about 20 sq ft. Make three pairs of moccasins out of it and you come out ahead.

If you don't want to take the time to do that, though, the ones I linked are actually pretty nice.

I'm actually trying ZC for crohn's at the moment. So far, so good.

The key to stopping crohn's is to stop the trigger. Wolfgang Lutz had success with a low carb diet, achieving remission in 80% of cases over a year, so it's a good idea to go low carb at least. Other recent research is pointing the finger at a particular bacteria, ubiquitous in humans, called klebsiella. Klebsiella produces an enzyme to break down starches which happens to contain protein sequences similar to those found in your intestinal collagen. If your body begins to have an immune response to that enzyme, the anti-bodies produced will also attack your intestinal wall, thus causing the auto-immune response that characterizes crohn's.

Cut out the starch, cut down on carbs, and your klebsiella population will plummet - and what remains won't be producing the trigger enzyme. Given time (Lutz claimed it took a year or so to see remission in 80% of patients on his diet), the immune response will cycle down. The SCD uses the same logic, though when you look at what some people do on the SCD you can see why it doesn't always work (nut-flour bread and such).

Good luck getting rid of your pain!

Plus, science works on the principle of the correct data being provided by whichever side has the most studies backing it or condemning the other side.

As has been pointed out, this is absolutely not how scientific knowledge is produced. That's how bullshit hysterical nonsense gets pushed on the public via the media and institutions looking to score more grant money. Scientific knowledge is the product of constantly testing hypotheses. There is never certainty and everything can be falsified.

I'm very sympathetic to the idea that cooked food is harmful. I believe it's a strong hypothesis, and merits further testing. It is not yet a well tested, proven hypothesis that generates a theory which can predict results. No one as done studies where one cohort eats raw and another eats the same stuff cooked and compared health outcomes. The fact that studies in humans are hard does not change the reality of the scientific method - until the raw hypothesis is tested, to claim that it's fully backed by science is, by definition, wrong. It's compelling. It is not proven.

No one needs to show that AGEs are beneficial. The burden of proof is on the raw claimaint to show that cooking causes statistically significant levels of harm in a population. If your two cohorts show no difference in mortality or health outcomes over a period of years, then clearly cooking is simply not harmful enough to be significant. If they do, then it clearly shows that cooking is significant. Until that science is done, the hypothesis is not confirmed. This is the basic scientific method. Are AGEs harmful? Probably. So is breathing car exhaust, getting lots of sunburn, having radio waves near your testicles - virtually every modern technology can and likely does cause harm to some, they just don't do so in a statistically significiant portion of the population. Cooking might just be yet another one of those toxic yet not epidemiologically significant activities modern humans participate in. The science has not been done to show it one way or the other.

For example, that  guy , Harris, blithely dismissed the concept of advanced glycation end products but was unable to provide any decent scientific data to back up his claim that AGEs don't matter.So, his argument looked  dead-in-the-water.

Harris' problem is that you can't produce any studies which demonstrate that AGEs do matter, at least no well constructed human studies intended to study the issue. You can produce oodles of tangential evidence that the byproducts of cooking are harmful, but no direct confirmation of that claim. It just hasn't been studied directly or thoroughly. If it had, this wouldn't be a debate.

It's not possible to prove a negative. The onus is on the claimant to prove the positive. Hence Harris' disdain for those who claim absolutely that cooking is the cause of all ills; without direct testing of the claim that various cooking byproducts are harmful rather than theoretically harmful or genuinely correlated with harm.

Why is it a choice between one obviously wrong choice and another obviously wrong choice? Nasty, Brutish and Short versus Noble Savage is a choice between a dragon and a unicorn. Both are obviously myths.

Here's a study of modern hunter gathers and their modal age of death. You can see that most of those who survive childhood live into their 60s and 70s. They lag the modern developed world by 5-10 years depending on the comparison made.

As for foolish suggestions for me to eat pemmican for a whole
month, I've already eaten plenty of cooked animal fat in the past decades for me to know exactly
how harmful it is for me and I shudder at the thought of having to eat a diet of mostly melted animal fat especially while having to undergo the same horrendous ...

Heh, I would never ask you to undertake an experiment. I merely pointed out for those interested that it would be trivial to settle this question with a simple experiment, thus taking the argument away from anecdote into data.

If you want to critique an idea, you have to test it. If you don't want to test an idea, then you cannot claim certainty about it. Of course, no one can't ever really claim certainty, but I doubt there are many Karl Popper fans here. Suffice it to say that arguing in absolutes without doing any testing is a truly "foolish". You might have some sort of reaction to cooked animal fat, but that does not mean every other human being will. You might not be able to handle zero carb, but that does not mean every other human being will fail as well. And while "perfect digestion" is indeed highly suspect, eating an essentially pre-digested food can reasonably be expected to reduce stool volume considerably, and so perhaps his claim is less exaggerated than you believe. Until the claim is tested, the amount of truth in his statement remains unsettled.

This is one of those things that would be extremely easy to test. There are a few all pemmican folks out there to ask, and if anyone here was genuinely interested you could eat it for a month and see what the trend was. I might do this at some point, just to see what the all pemmican people are going on about and attempt to reproduce or falsify their claims. I use pemmican when I'm away for weekends and if made well it's oddly tasty. Well, not tasty exactly. But I always want to eat more despite it having the texture of greasy, flaky sawdust.

Perfect digestion is theoretically possible, and if there's any food that would allow for it, it's pemmican, due to the steps taken in processing it. It's highly unlikely that anyone actually achieves perfect digestion (Delfuego's claims aside, even he admits to passing something), but significant reductions in bowel movement and bowel size don't seem unreasonable.

Eating meat doesn't make brains magically grow, it allows more resources for brains (and other organs) to grow. But if there were exceptional demands on the brain in conjunction with extra nutritional resources, then..

This summarizes the argument made by the article pretty well. I'm not sure what your disagreement is... this sentence is exactly what you called a non sequitur at the top of your post. I'm also not sure why you point out that this leaves "why" unanswered; yes, it very explicitly leaves "why" unanswered because that's outside the scope of the argument.

Yes, but then it changes in size. Kleiber's law has held for many observed organisms (hence its status as a "law"). You can't be the size of a human with an elephant's metabolism. You'd need to be roughly the size of the elephant to have the same overall expenditure.

If you increased in size while also increasing the relative expenditure of your brain, your gut would be proportionally smaller when you settled at your larger size. The end result would be the same as if you had stayed the same size overall and just traded off between the two, with a smaller gut relative to overall body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiber's_law

No one has a good theoretical explanation as to why this is, but the observations are too consistent to dismiss the law.

And again, I must stress that the link between the two goes more like "brain growing -> meat eating" than the other way around. We ate meat to support larger brains - those brains didn't magically appear due to eating meat.

I note that not one of those links actually examined the Mongoloid idiot claim, thereby rendering your continued assertions in that regard moot.

Again, there is every reason to be skeptical of Price's conclusions. There is no reason whatsoever to claim that they are "dodgy", fraudulent or dishonest. Ascribing motive to incorrectness is unwarranted and irrational without significant proof. It simply does not follow on its own, and you have not provided any convincing reason for Price to spend years of his life compiling a giant pile of lies. Even assuming he was blinkered by a deeply held belief that natives were superior, it doesn't change the actual observational data. It only affects the weight of his conclusions.

I don't particularly disagree with one component of your claim, that Price should not be taken as gospel. No one should. However, your continued dismissal of anything you disagree with, and your continued assertion that this was active fraud and dishonesty are not well supported and not well constructed. For instance, you attack Price for making "dodgy" claims by citing a doctor (Furhman) who advocates an essentially vegetarian diet. Vegetarian?! What a liar and a fraud Furhman must be! What a dishonest charlatan! Why would you reference such a worthless, dodgy person?

Price's data is just that, data. He went around, took pictures of people's faces and teeth, and noted the striking difference between those eating their traditional diet and those eating the western diet of the time. That's virtually the entire substance of the book. He does not claim that natives had "perfect health". He claims that they had better health than their related contemporaries eating a western diet. Given the western diet of the time, this should be unsurprising and uncontroversial.

I did not take his claims of perfect childbirth, or the other random things he noted, as something intended to be believed as gospel. I read it as an observation or secondhand story being related in the notes. You seem to be taking it as some sort of intentional fraud intended to convince you of something - I did not get that impression at all. You are projecting your prejudice on to the text and then, apparently, believing it to be the only correct interpretation. There's no reason to be paranoid and no reason to ascribe a motive that tickles your superiority complex. Data just is, observations just are, and to call either fraudulent requires a whole hell of a lot more work than just saying "Well it is because I believe it so."

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, yet you claim absolute authority. Are you playing devil's advocate or are you serious?

Price did something and reported a result. You are leaping to conclusions left and right to support your notion that he's a fraud and a liar - there's a simple alternative explanation between "cured Down's" and "fraudulent quack", which is simply "corrected other problem". We have no idea if the child even actually had Down's syndrome or simply had some brain issue that generated similar symptoms. We have no idea if the improvement in brain function would be sustained or repeatable in other patients. We lack the data to evaluate Price's claim, which indeed should be treated with skepticism. However, to call it absurd, fraudulent or dishonest is totally unwarranted, irrational and unskeptical - it shows a prejudice being projected on the data rather than a cold, objective analysis.

You claim that no brain tissue was built up - how do you know? Why is that even relevant or necessary for the obtained result? You claim that it's absurd that changes can take place rapidly over three months - really? What clinical experience do you have to back that claim up? Let's review: you don't know what the problem with the child was, you have no training or schooling which would inform your opinion, you have no clinical experience treating patients with this type of surgery, yet you can state absolutely and without qualification that Price is lying. Apply your own standard of proof to your own claims and see what conclusion that leads you to.

Again. The man was wrong on many issues. That does not mean he is a fraud or that his observations should be thrown away as wrong.

You now make yet another sweeping general claim, that alcohol played a greater part in the ill health of populations than the switch to a western diet. Alcohol? Alcohol is part of the western diet. Leaving aside the obvious contradiction, I'm left wondering why it is you are grasping at such a straw. Of course alcoholism destroys people. Does it also rot their teeth, destroy their facial structure development and cause multiple vitamin deficiencies? Are you actually claiming that every single native populations' children were consuming enough alcohol to cause those issues? And you attack Price for absurd claims! Those problems were obviously caused by malnutrition, predominately as a result of switching to a bleached flour/sugar based diet. Alcohol certainly played a role in the breakdown of many societies' structure and health, but to claim that it's somehow a significant confounding factor demands a much greater justification than a bald assertion.

You seem desperate to find one thing on which you can base a wholesale dismissal of everything Price did that doesn't fit your belief system. Why? Most people seem capable of separating the 1930s medical theory from the 1930s observed results without throwing out the whole lot while accusing the man of being a liar.

Of course smallpox is very relevant indeed as Price claimed that the native populations died or suffered healthwise because of a switch to a western type of diet, whereas, as with smallpox and other issues, one can see that there were plenty of alternative explanations. When someone like Price carefully ignores such aspects, he is clearly being dishonest.

They did suffer due to that switch. Nowhere did he claim that they suffered exclusively due to that switch. Unless you are claiming that smallpox causes tooth decay, the evidence Price collected is conclusive in that regard (especially considering the vast array of confirmation from other sources). You are inventing strawmen here.

Go ahead and read the chapter. Price claims that the child showed improvement after the surgery which was later reversed post surgery. There is not enough detail in the account to really say what was going on. To cry "fraud! dishonesty!" is completely unwarranted. For all you know, the child Price operated on happened to have an unknown other ailment which was alleviated by the surgery, creating a confounding result. You have no actual clinical experience in this area and so your absolute claim of fraud/dishonesty is worth even less than Price's writings on the subject; at least he was a dentist. He presented his hypothesis as to why the change occurred - not his claim for a cure.

I don't understand your tone and attitude towards Price. It's as if you have a personal vendetta against him. Science is testing and falsifiying ideas with experiment. Hurling abuse at a dead guy and his observations because he was wrong in how he interpreted them is neither scientific nor rational. No one is right all the time and all scientists are in fact wrong most of the time. This does not imply that they are wrong all of the time, and that we should seize on their failures to throw out everything they did.

I agree that Price's claims should be treated with skepticism. I think all claims should be treated with skepticism. However, that skepticism must be rational, open and demanding of testable hypothesis, not angry, adamant and dismissive.

Breaking down a disaccharide molecule is one of the simplest digestive things your body does. If you eat a tablespoon of table sugar, you will end up with "honey" in your small intestine ready for absorption just as if you eat a tablespoon of honey. The difference is negligible unless you have some sort of issue with your pancreas producing sucrase, or some other severe digestive issue. The fact that honey is pre-digested is only a distinguishing factor if you are consuming massive quantities of honey versus massive quantities of table sugar.

Bacteria in the small intestine and in the large intestine will readily ferment glucose and fructose. The source does not matter. If you are leaking table sugar into your large intestines due to damage to your digestive system, it's very likely you'll do the same with honey, which will have the same effect. Of course, if you have personal experience and evidence to present, that would be interesting to hear.

It'd be much more interesting than reading your exact matching copy/paste responses taken from http://www.honey-health.com/. Right now I don't think you're actually thinking about what you're saying. You're just copy/pasting something that sounds good.