Parasites prey on weak, dead and damaged cells. Cells are weakened and
damaged by neolithic diet, including cooked proteins. Malnutrition.

My recent reading of the habits of hookworms show that they are
actually symbiotes to those who eat enough meat, I don't know if it
must be raw, but this would help as it is much better in terms of
available nutrients. Maybe other so-called parasites might be the
same.

Symmetry should result from three generations of adequate nutrition
and avoiding anti-nutrients such as nitrites, smog, electro-fog, soy,
PCBs and other sources of xeno-estrogens etc.

Those who eat enough fodder must kill "parasites".

Big tits get my atttention but the old saying is "If you want milk,
buy a cow". A well-curved arse combined with the traditional hourglass
figure is more inspiring. IMHO

William





--- In rawpaleodiet@yahoogroups.com, "Jeuxles" <jeuxles@...> wrote:
>
> I have been thinking about why even the most primitive cultures seem
to cook their meat. If there was no benefit, why would they bother if
the only reason we cook is squeamishness and they would not have those
fears. Asians who eat raw fish also are religious about including
parasite preventive measures in the routine. (ginger/wasabi with raw
fish for instance) Might those who eat raw in extreme northern
regions be protected from parasites from the climate and frozen food?
In my experience, there is usually a real good reason for such
sweeping trends such as cooking meat and sexy women marrying rich old
men. If cooking meat had no real purpose, do you think the trend
wouldve caught on so well for so long?
>
> I've been reading about how parasitic infection actually affects how
certain genes are expressed throughout our growth. In animals it may
be the intensity of coloration or other ornamental markings. In
humans and animals, the most important factor in natural selection
(read: getting laid) seems to be bodily symmetry. Parasitic infection
or susceptibility to it may be expressed physically in our physical
appearance.
>
> Antlers:
> "By antihelmintic treatment of naturally infected female reindeer we
show that parasite intensities affect development of antler asymmetry,
but not antler length. These results suggest that asymmetry in antlers
may reflect parasite intensities and thus be of importance in
intraspecific assessment of genetic resistance towards infectious
organisms."
> http://tinyurl.com/oew9v
>
> "Thompson et al (1997) found there to be a correlation in house
finches and the amount of parasite load. They did not try to indicate
that parasites were the cause or consequence of poor host
physiological condition(Thompson et al 1997) but rather that parasites
negatively effect the biological and biochemical mechanisms involving
metabolism, etc. Their study looked at post-molting plumage color,
feather length and parasite infection rates to determine how sexual
selection was affected. Thompson et al (1997) determined from their
experiment that long, red flight feathers and plumage were indicators
of high fitness, low parasite infection while males with a high
parasite infection rate were drab-yellowish in color with shorter
flight feathers. The reason for smaller feathers is considered a
direct result of the parasitic infection leading to less energy being
expended to grow the feathers and being redirected to fight the
infection (Thompson et al 1997)."
>
> Thompson, C., Hillgarth, N.,Leu, M., McClure, H.. 1997. High
Parasite Load in House Finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) is correlated
with Reduced Expression of Sexually Selected Trait. American
Naturalist, Volume 149, Issue 2 (Feb., 1997), 270-294.
> http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/EvolutionPage/FinalPapers/Sex1.htm
>
> Here is a good article about the visible symptoms of parasites in
pasture raised lamb (read: healthy lamb). I might add that I posted
this link to the live-food list above some time ago and it was
rejected for posting.
> http://www.sheepandgoat.com/articles/IPM.html
>
> I don't think that only improperly nourished individuals are
susceptible to parasites as is the common myth around health-concious
communities. While it may be true that they are more prone, healthy
humans and animals may genetically be more susceptible despite their
actions during their lifetime. It seems to be a combination of what
we inherited as well as our own choices.
>
> There seems to be few actions we can take that are 100% positive or
negative for us. There is always consequence, one way or another.
For instance with plant foods, we may be able to cook and prepare them
in ways to allow ourselves to bypass the natural toxins and access
some of the calories or nutrition they have to offer. But cooking
them also depletes them of certain nutrients and might produce other
toxins in the process. By cooking meat, we may also destroy enzymes
and alter proteins and fat to some degree that may or may not have
negative consequences, but we may also reduce the load of bacteria and
parasites that our body has to deal with, therefore allowing our
bodies more energy to be creative and beautiful (read: loud roaring
and symmetrical)
>
> Is there a compromise where we all come out ahead and symmetrical?
Have we already found that compromise through traditional methods of
preparing and lightly cooking our foods with care? Raw Paleo Dieters
are on the fringe, we are the guinea pigs, who are we to tell everyone
else they are wrong? What is the consequence to balance the advantage
we have gained with raw animal foods? Though not immediately visible,
might it be expressed in our children, or much later in life in us?
Parasites may clean our guts, and consuming lots of bacteria may
strengthen our immune system, but, as informed by nature, will it also
make it more difficult to get laid by big bosomed women who are in
touch with their instincts?
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> What do you think?
>